U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–363 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–180

NOMINATIONS TO THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL

RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, CONSUMER

PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, AND THE

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS

AUTHORITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 12, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

DAVID RUSSELL, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 12, 2005 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Allen ..................................................................................... 33

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 9

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24

Statement of Senator Bill Nelson ........................................................................... 4

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 31

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

WITNESSES

Boardman, Joseph H., Nominee to be Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration ................................................................................................................. 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21

Biographical information ................................................................................. 22

Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from North Carolina ....................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Cobey, Jr., Hon. William W., Nominee to the Board of Directors, Metropolitan 

Washington Airports Authority .......................................................................... 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Biographical information ................................................................................. 42

Dole, Hon. Elizabeth, U.S. Senator from North Carolina .................................... 7

Griffin, Dr. Michael D., Nominee to be Administrator, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration ................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13

Biographical information ................................................................................. 15

Nord, Nancy A., Nominee to be Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 36

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

Biographical information ................................................................................. 38

Sarbanes, Hon. Paul S., U.S. Senator from Maryland ......................................... 2

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland .................................... 4

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from New York .................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

APPENDIX

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, letter dated April 

4, 2005 to Hon. Ted Stevens and Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ................................. 47

King, David D., Deputy Secretary for Transit, NC Department of Transportation, letter dated April 7, 2005 to Hon. Ted Stevens and Hon. Daniel 

K. Inouye ............................................................................................................... 47

Response to written questions submitted to Joseph Boardman by: 

Hon. Byron L. Dorgan ...................................................................................... 52

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 53

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 53

Hon. David Vitter ............................................................................................. 51

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Michael D. Griffin by: 

Hon. John McCain ............................................................................................ 48

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 50

Hon. David Vitter ............................................................................................. 49

(1)

NOMINATIONS TO THE NATIONAL 

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, 

AND THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON 

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY 

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:28 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator INOUYE. At the direction and instructions of the Chair, 

I want to welcome all the nominees with us today and especially 

the families. You have a lot to be proud of, and I know that this 

is a very important day for all of you. And so I will place my statement on each nominee in the record, because I think we would like 

to expedite the hearings. I will have a few questions, but those, too, 

will be made part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

I want to welcome Dr. Michael Griffin, the President’s nominee to be the next Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Dr. Griffin brings with him an impressive resume and extensive experience in both the public and private sector. I am confident that Dr. Griffin will leverage this experience 

to get NASA back on track. 

Dr. Griffin’s major challenge will be returning credibility to NASA. There are 

issues with returning to flight, competition from other countries, and striking an appropriate balance in science, and with fiscal responsibility. 

It has been over two years since the Columbia Shuttle disaster and NASA is still 

feeling the effects. 

Dr. Griffin, you will take the reins at an agency that is dedicated to returning 

the shuttle safely to flight. However, in recent weeks, we have heard concerns from 

members of the Stafford-Covey team, NASA engineers, and other members of the 

NASA family. You are in the unenviable position of having to sign off on the safety 

of the flight without having had the opportunity to oversee the implementation of 

the Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s recommendations. Space flight is never 

without risk, but I hope you will take the time to assure yourself that our astronauts face the minimum risk possible when heading into space. 

2

NASA and the United States are facing competition from other countries looking 

to establish a presence in orbit. China recently put a man into space and plans to 

build a space station. Japan just announced a 20-year initiative to go to the moon. 

In addition, we are already aware of Europe and Russia’s space-faring capabilities. Our presence in space is not only a matter of national prestige, but of strategic 

importance. This is clearly an area where we not only have to compete, but lead, 

and the leadership will need to come from NASA. 

As the agency pursues exploration, NASA should not sacrifice its scientific pursuits. NASA is one of this country’s leading scientific agencies, which over the years 

has made major contributions to science and aeronautics. Robotic missions to Mars, 

the numerous space telescopes that beam back magnificent images of the universe, 

and Earth science satellites are all examples of how NASA can produce valuable discoveries without endangering human life. I hope that Dr. Griffin shares my view 

on the importance of NASA’s commitment to basic science. 

As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Griffin has several major challenges awaiting him at 

NASA. Fiscal responsibility and credibility is perhaps the most fundamental challenge. The agency has a dismal record when it comes to estimating costs. Auditors 

have been unable to certify the agency’s accounting books in three out of the last 

four years, and Congress has been told not to expect a clean audit for Fiscal Year 

2005. NASA needs to be on sound financial footing as it goes forward with the President’s Vision for Exploration. 

While Congress often focuses on the negative, I would be remiss in closing without 

saying that Dr. Griffin takes the helm of a great agency. The men and women of 

NASA are redefining what is possible. I look forward to working with you, Dr. Griffin, to help NASA respond to the challenges it faces. 

I welcome Commissioner Joe Boardman here today as we consider his appointment as Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Mr. 

Boardman presently heads the New York State Department of Transportation. I understand that Mr. Boardman is considered a leader on rail issues among state transportation officials and we look forward to learning more about him and working 

with him. 

Several recent high profile railroad accidents have raised this Committee’s concern and Mr. Boardman will have many challenges, including, strengthening the 

safety of our nation’s railroads. 

Amtrak faces yet another crisis this year, in part due to the Administration’s proposal to zero-out Amtrak and bankrupt the railroad. We are all anxious to learn 

your thoughts on reauthorizing Amtrak and your opinion of the Administration’s 

plans for radical restructuring or bankruptcy.

Senator INOUYE. We have several of our colleagues here, so we 

would like to hear from them. May I call upon my dear friend, Paul 

Sarbanes? Senator Sarbanes of Maryland. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL S. SARBANES,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator SARBANES. Well, thank you very much, Senator Inouye 

and Members of the Committee. 

I have come with my esteemed colleague, Senator Mikulski, to 

introduce a highly respected leader in Maryland’s scientific community, Dr. Michael Griffin, who is the President’s nominee to serve 

as the next Administrator of NASA. We think this is just an outstanding nomination. 

Dr. Griffin is a native of Maryland, born in Aberdeen, the home 

of Cal Ripken, Jr., I might note, for whatever relevance that has 

to the hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SARBANES. And he has been educated in some of our nation’s finest academic institutions. He has his Bachelor of Arts degree in Physics from the Johns Hopkins University, and he has 

earned five master’s degrees; Aerospace Science from Catholic University, Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern 

California, Applied Physics from Johns Hopkins, Civil Engineering 

3

from George Washington University, and Business Administration 

from Loyola College of Maryland. He also earned his Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Maryland. So, as you can 

see, Dr. Griffin is literally, quite literally, a rocket scientist. 

He is currently the Space Department Head of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Howard County, 

Maryland. Johns Hopkins APL is a nonprofit division of the Johns 

Hopkins University, and, under the strong leadership of Dr. Richard Rocca, serves as one of the premier research and development 

institutions in the nation. For almost 50 years, APL’s Space Division has played a central role in supporting our nation’s civilian 

and military space programs. And they have carried out any number of very, very important scientific endeavors there. 

The New York Times put it well in an editorial strongly supporting Dr. Griffin’s nomination, entitled very simply but appropriately, ‘‘A Talented Leader.’’ He has held a number of leadership 

positions during his long career in both the public and private sectors. They have demanded an extraordinarily high level of both scientific excellence and administrative capabilities. And he has met 

those challenges at a very high standard. 

Currently the head of APL’s Space Division, Mike Griffin oversees a staff of over 600 employees, and a budget well in excess of 

$200 million. He has, of course, had very important experience at 

NASA in the upper echelons as both the Chief Engineer and the 

Associate Administrator for Exploration. He has held important 

management positions in the private sector. In addition to his administrative and research interests, he has continued to do important academic work. He continues to serve as an adjunct professor 

at Maryland and Hopkins. 

I need not mention to this Committee the challenges faced in the 

space program. We think that the expertise and the passion that 

Mike Griffin brings to the job is exactly what is needed. 

I am very pleased to come before the Committee today to very 

strongly endorse his nomination. And I very much hope the Committee can act expeditiously and favorably on this nomination. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Senator Sarbanes. 

I must apologize to my colleagues. I forgot to call upon them. 

Senator McCain, do you have any statement? 

Senator MCCAIN. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INOUYE. Senator Lautenberg? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I would like to proffer some remarks after 

we have heard from our friends at——

Senator INOUYE. All right. Senator Hutchison? 

Senator HUTCHISON. I will also make remarks following the witnesses at the witness table. I would like to make an opening statement as Chairman of the NASA and——

Senator INOUYE. OK. Senator Nelson of Florida? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I just think Dr. Griffin is an 

outstanding choice. I think he is going to be a breath of fresh air. 

And not only does he, in fact, bring the credentials to the table that 

4

he is, in fact, a rocket scientist, he carries himself with great humility. And I think that is going to fit very well with the NASA 

family. 

Senator INOUYE. Senator Mikulski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA A. MIKULSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Senator Inouye and to 

members of the panel. 

I am here really under two flags: One, the proud flag of Maryland, talking about one of Maryland’s favorite sons, Dr. Mike Griffin, to be nominated for the NASA Administrator, and then the 

other as the Ranking Member on the Senate Appropriations Committee who has responsibility for the funding of NASA programs. 

I want to thank President Bush for nominating such an outstanding candidate to head up NASA at this time of great strategic 

importance for NASA’s future and also the fact that the NASA Administrator has to deal with the long-range plans and the shortrange crises that we are now facing. 

Under the Maryland flag, as Senator Sarbanes said, Mike Griffin 

is really a hometown guy, coming from Aberdeen, the home of Cal 

Ripken, Jr. What is important about that is he brings those, what 

we call, those Ripken values, that Ripken way, to NASA. What 

does that mean? To be the best of what you best can be and to 

work hard at it, to concentrate with a high level and degree of competence, but at the same time to put values into action, playing by 

the rules, serving your community, and being an outstanding citizen. This is what Mike Griffin has done. He has gone to our local 

schools; Aberdeen High School, Johns Hopkins, Loyola, Maryland. 

He has five master’s degrees in a variety of engineering and physics, and also even an MBA from Loyola College. Much has been 

made over the fact that he is a rocket scientist. Thank God that 

we are really going to have someone who understands what this is 

all about. 

Because the very safety of our astronauts will depend on the 

quality of this NASA Administrator, as we get ready to return to 

flight. Much has been made over the fact that he worked at the 

Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, heading their Space Department, knowing what earth science means, knowing what space 

science means, and knowing what it means to be a contractor and 

to meet the bottom line while serving the nation. 

Dr. Griffin brings a variety of experiences from within government, within the Applied Physics Lab, as well as the private sector, 

with the Magellan Systems and the Orbiter Systems. And he even 

ran a nonprofit company for the CIA, when the CIA created a nonprofit venture capital firm, to search for new technologies that 

would serve the nation. He is a rare combination of a scientist, an 

engineer, and a manager. 

Dear colleagues, as the Commerce Committee knows, NASA is 

facing enormous challenges right now; The need to return to flight 

safely. We need to send our astronauts not only back into space but 

to return them safely. We need to be able to finish that Space Station. I, of course, want to save the Hubble and hope that Dr. Griffin 

is an able partner in that. We need to see how they are going to 

5

implement the Moon/Mars Initiative, at the same time revise aeronautics, which is so crucial. I am sick and tired of being beaten by 

Airbus. I want to win Nobel prizes. I want to win the markets. And 

I want a NASA Administrator who can do that. 

This is what I think Mike Griffin will help be able to do, a framework where we meet the immediate crises facing us, but at the 

same time look to the long-range needs of our country. 

So I am proud to introduce him as both a Marylander and the 

Ranking Member on the Senate Appropriations Committee now responsible. And also, I want to thank—while Dr. Griffin has served 

the nation, his wonderful wife, Rebecca, has been behind him. And 

we know that behind every great rocket scientist was the woman 

who provided the rocket. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MIKULSKI. So thank you very much. And I hope that we 

send his nomination forward quickly. 

Senator INOUYE. How can we say no? 

Senator Schumer? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank the Members of the Committee. I am delighted and proud 

to introduce someone who is not a rocket scientist, but an expert 

on transportation and administration, to the Committee. And that 

is Joseph H. Boardman of New York. 

He is currently the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation. He is the nominee to be the next Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. I’ve known Joe for 

a long time. We have worked closely together on many transportation projects in New York State, and I think he will do a great 

job at FRA. And I recommend him wholeheartedly, as does my colleague, Senator Clinton, who could not be here today. 

Joe has been the head of the New York State Department of 

Transportation for the last 7 years. He made a lifetime of working 

to make all modes of New York’s transportation system safer and 

more efficient. He is a hometown boy, as well, for us. He is a lifelong New Yorker. He worked his way up. He is from the Mohawk 

Valley in upstate New York, where my dad was raised. He has 

worked his way up from being manager of both the Transportation 

and Parking Authorities of Rome, New York, to Commissioner of 

Public Transportation in Broome County, in which Binghamton 

lies, to finally becoming the Commissioner of Transportation in 

1997. 

And New York has one of the largest and most complex transportation systems in the country. Throughout these experiences, Commissioner Boardman showed that he possessed the unique knowledge of how essential, safe, fast, and easily accessible transportation is vital to local communities and to economic growth of entire states, regions, and across the country. I am proud to say that, 

as Commissioner, Joe has expanded Amtrak service across New 

York, presiding over record growth in ridership. He has enhanced 

his department’s ability to inspect and crack down on rail safety 

6

violations and made safety a top priority. He is going to need these 

two traits. 

Before I sat down with the Commissioner and spoke with him, 

he assured me he would fight hard for Amtrak. We all know that 

is going to be a big, big fight in the Senate this year and in the 

budget. And furthermore, with the recent revelations of safety 

lapses in our rail system, particularly our freight rail system, he 

has assured me he would focus on that. The FRA, I think, has a 

little bit lost its way in that area over the last few years. And I 

think Joe Boardman will bring it up to snuff. 

So he is a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and dedicated transportation official. I look forward to working with him. I am proud to 

endorse his nomination and introduce him to this very, very special 

Committee. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Schumer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK

Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye, and Committee Members, I am 

proud and delighted to introduce Joseph H. Boardman of New York, current Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation and nominee to be 

the next Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. I know that Commissioner Boardman will do a great job at the FRA and recommended his nomination wholeheartedly. 

Commissioner Boardman has been head of NYSDOT for the last seven years, 

after a lifetime of working to make of New York’s transportation system safer and 

more efficient. A lifelong New Yorker, born and raised on a dairy farm in Oneida 

County, Commissioner Boardman worked his way up from being manager of both 

the Transportation and Parking Authorities of Rome, NY, to Commissioner of Public 

Transportation in Broome County, to finally becoming Commissioner of Transportation in 1997 of one of the largest and most complex transportation systems in the 

country. 

Through these experiences, Commissioner Boardman possesses unique knowledge 

of how essential safe, fast, and easily accessible transportation is to local communities and to the economic growth of entire states, regions, and across the country. 

As Commissioner, Commissioner Boardman has expanded Amtrak service across 

New York, presiding over record growth in ridership, enhanced his Department’s 

ability to inspect and crack down on rail safety violations, and made safety a top 

priority at both the state and national levels. 

Rail safety and the preservation of Amtrak are the two most pressing issues confronting Commissioner Boardman as he takes the reigns of the FRA. I have full confidence that Commissioner Boardman will be an ally in the fight to make our rail 

lines safer, though the use of tougher regulation, heavier penalties for negligent 

railroad companies, and the expansion of available modern technology. 

Commissioner Boardman is a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and dedicated transportation official and I look forward to working with him to make our nation’s rail system the safest and most efficient in the world.

Senator INOUYE. We were all pleased to see Senator Dole on 

Meet the Press. And I know that his book will be a best seller. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you. 

Senator INOUYE. Senator Dole. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH DOLE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator DOLE. Thank you very much. 

Senator Inouye, distinguished Committee Members, it gives me 

great pleasure and it is indeed an honor to support this morning 

Bill Cobey, nominated to serve as a member of the Washington AirVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:55 Nov 17, 2005 Jkt 023363 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\23363.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
7

ports Authority Board. Bill has demonstrated a long and dedicated 

commitment to public service over the years for our Home State of 

North Carolina and our nation. Without a doubt, one of the most 

rewarding and challenging projects I chose to undertake while 

serving as Secretary of Transportation was the task of moving National and Dulles International Airports out of the Federal Government. 

National was a rather shabby, small gateway to the nation’s capital. And following airline deregulation, Dulles was desperately in 

need of vast expansion. I will never forget the night in 1984 when 

my husband and I were having a little pillow talk, Senator Inouye. 

And I told him of my conviction that it was time for Uncle Sam 

to ‘‘free the airports.’’ Bob’s reaction? He said, ‘‘Forget it, Elizabeth. 

It has been tried eight times since 1949, and it never got out of 

committee.’’ And he rolled over and went to sleep. As far as I was 

concerned, the gauntlet had been thrown down. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DOLE. I later found that Bob was absolutely correct in 

predicting the journey to regional control would be a very tough 

one indeed. But after 3 years of dedicated effort from a very talented team and the help of you, Senator Inouye, and other Committee Members, it passed both houses of Congress and was signed 

into law by President Reagan. 

In 1987, independent operation of Washington’s two airports became a successful partnership. Our plan was working. The airports 

were able to raise the necessary funds through sales of tax-free 

bonds to provide for the capital improvements and expansions. 

Today, Washington’s two airports serve 39 million passengers annually with 1,069 daily flights to over 100 destinations throughout 

the United States and 36 countries worldwide. 

It is the responsibility of the Washington Airports Authority 

Board to oversee the airports and their security, safety, development and maintenance. I commend the board for their excellence 

in handling the more than 100,000 passengers who use the two airports on a daily basis. And I thank Senator Stevens for all his help 

in creating this board. He signed the cloture petition for the enabling legislation. And he ‘‘Hulk’ed’’ the provision through on an omnibus bill. Without his leadership, we would not be having this 

hearing today. 

And Senator Inouye, I thank you for your hard work in making 

that bill a bipartisan effort, which has indeed made air travel to 

and from our nation’s capital far easier and less expensive. 

I know that Bill Cobey will be a wonderful asset, will do a great 

job as an addition to the Airports Authority Board. Bill has served 

his state and nation in many different capacities, and he has an 

outstanding list of accomplishments. 

He received his undergraduate education from Emory University 

in Atlanta and then earned an MBA from the prestigious Wharton 

School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and an M.Ed. 

in health and physical education from the University of Pittsburgh. 

Prior to representing North Carolina in the U.S. Congress, Bill 

served as Governor Jim Martin’s Deputy Secretary of Transportation and later as Secretary of North Carolina’s Department of 

Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 

8

A devoted husband, father and grandfather, Bill is a man I am 

proud to call my friend, a man of tremendous character, a man 

committed to making our country better. I am confident that the 

board and the country will benefit from his service. 

I thank you for this opportunity to express my admiration and 

respect for Bill Cobey, Mr. Chairman, and to present him to the 

Committee. Thank you. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Senator Dole. 

And now I would like to welcome Senator Burr. 

Senator Burr. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Chairman Inouye and Members of the 

Committee. I am proud to be here today representing North Carolina, the home of this year’s collegiate basketball champions and, 

as of last night, Miss USA. 

It is my pleasure today to introduce Bill Cobey of Durham, North 

Carolina. And I am here today to fully endorse his nomination to 

the board of the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. It 

should be noted that Bill was elected to the House of Representatives in 1984 and served with Senators McCain, Lott, Snowe, Dorgan, and Senator Boxer, all current Members of the Commerce 

Committee, as Members of the House in the 98th Congress. 

While Bill’s well-documented service to our state and country as 

a Congressman, cabinet secretary in Raleigh, and public university 

advocate qualify him for a position on the Authority’s board, I believe it will be his background as an athletic director at one of the 

nation’s most successful universities that will best serve the mission of the board. Athletic directors are known for their tenacity in 

raising money and support for capital improvement projects. And 

his success at the University of North Carolina and the success of 

the school’s athletic program and what it enjoys today are the direct result of capital campaigns undertaken by the school during 

his tenure as athletic director. 

His wealth of knowledge in these endeavors and deep reserve of 

people skills will position the Authority well as it prepares current 

and future capital improvements at Reagan and Dulles Airports. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the Committee favorably reporting on Bill’s nomination. And I will be honored to cast my vote for 

him when the nomination is considered by the full Senate. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Burr follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA

Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye, it is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Bill 

Cobey of Durham, North Carolina, and I am here today to fully endorse his nomination to the board of the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. 

It should be noted that Bill was elected to the House of Representatives in 1984 

and served with Senator McCain, Senator Lott, Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan and 

Senator Boxer, all current Members of the Commerce Committee, as Members of the 

House in the 98th Congress. 

While Bill’s well-documented service to our state and country (as a Congressman, 

Cabinet Secretary in Raleigh, and public university advocate) qualify him for a position on the Authority’s board, I believe it will be his background as athletic director 

9

at one of the nation’s most successful university’s that will best serve the mission 

of the board. 

Athletic directors are known for their tenacity in raising money and support for 

capital improvement projects, and his success at the University and the success the 

school’s athletic program enjoys today are the direct result of capital campaigns undertaken by the school during his tenure as athletic director. His wealth of knowledge in these endeavors and deep reservoir of people skills will position the Authority well as it prepares current and future capital improvements at Reagan and Dulles airports. 

I look forward to the Committee favorably reporting out Bill’s nomination and I 

will be honored to cast my vote for him when the nomination is considered by the 

whole Senate.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Senator Burr. 

And thank you, Senator Dole. 

And now it is my pleasure to call upon the first panel, Dr. Michael Griffin, nominated to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Mr. Joseph Boardman, 

nominated to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, could I make an opening 

statement as the witnesses are coming forward? Could I make my 

opening statement? 

Senator INOUYE. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. As Chairman of the NASA and Science Subcommittee, I just want to say how pleased I am with the nomination of Dr. Michael Griffin, because I think having his leadership, 

his expertise, his knowledge at this time when we are trying to get 

the return to flight and set NASA on its mission for the next 50 

years, I think having a leader such as Michael Griffin will enable 

us to get a clear focus of where we want NASA to go. And so I am 

very supportive of his nomination. 

We are going to have several hearings in our Committee to talk 

about the importance of the Shuttle, and the Space Station. And 

I will have questions later for Dr. Griffin regarding some of those 

issues. But I do want to ask the Chairman and the Ranking Member to consider trying to get Dr. Griffin’s nomination out of the 

Senate this week. We know that return to flight is on a time schedule. And having the, not permanent leader of NASA, but certainly 

the designated leader of NASA on board by Monday would help accomplish the return to flight on that timetable. 

So Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can expedite his votes from the 

Committee and further have this on the Senate floor before we 

leave this week. That would be my request. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to support Senator 

Hutchison’s comment. NASA needs a leader, as we are coming back 

to flight. And if you can honor Senator Hutchison’s request to expedite this nomination to the floor so that he could be in place the 

beginning of next week, I think it would serve the Nation well. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Senator, if we have a quorum tomorrow, we will report the nomination. 

10

Dr. Griffin, first let me say, I apologize. I was appearing before 

the Intelligence Committee to introduce my great friend, Ambassador Negroponte, to that committee for the confirmation to his 

new post as Director of National Intelligence. I want to put in the 

record without objection the statement I would have made had I 

been here to open the hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

The Committee will come to order. 

Today the Committee will hear from four of the President’s nominees and the 

Senators who will introduce them. On the first panel will be Dr. Griffin and Mr. 

Boardman. 

Dr. Michael Griffin was nominated on March 14, 2005 to be NASA Administrator. 

Senator Mikulski will introduce him. 

Joseph Boardman was nominated on March 17, 2005 to Head the Federal Railroad Administration. Senator Schumer will introduce Mr. Boardman. 

The second panel will have Nancy Nord, who was nominated on February 28, 

2005 to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Ms. Nord 

is a South Dakota native, and I understand Senators Thune and Johnson support 

her nomination. 

Former Representative Bill Cobey was nominated to the Metropolitan Washington 

Airports Authority on February 28, 2005. Senators Dole and Burr will introduce 

him. 

I do not have a lengthy statement, but will just say that these nominees, if confirmed, will join important agencies. 

NASA is in the process of returning the Space Shuttle to flight after the Columbia

accident and re-organizing itself to pursue the President’s vision for space exploration. 

The authorization for the Federal Railroad Administration has expired, and the 

next FRA Administrator will have to work closely with this Committee to re-authorize that agency. 

The authorization for the Consumer Product Safety Commission has also expired, 

and the Commission’s authority to operate with a two member quorum expires at 

the end of this month. 

Finally, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority will play an important 

role in the future of general aviation access in the Washington area. 

Before I recognize my Co-chairman, let me ask the Committee to submit posthearing questions as quickly as possible. All nominees are anxious to move forward. 

NASA in particular needs a new administrator as the Space Shuttle returns to 

flight next month.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Griffin, would you please introduce your family? I believe there are some of them here. Are there? 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir, there are. My wife Rebecca; my brother-inlaw, Ray Hand; and one of my daughters, Allison Griffin are here 

with me today. I am very pleased. 

As much as I dislike to correct any statement made by Senator 

Mikulski, I would have to say that Rebecca is actually the one who 

lights the fire, rather than bringing the rocket. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. It looks like you are going to have to expand 

on that comment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Michael, I will be glad to hand her the torch. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boardman, would you introduce your family, 

please? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes, Senator. My wife is with me, Joanne 

Boardman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Boardman. 

11

Mr. BOARDMAN. And my kids are all watching. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. 

Well, we are delighted to have these two nominees. First, Dr. 

Griffin, nominated to be Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, we would be pleased to hear any 

statement you wish to make. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, NOMINEE TO BE

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Sir, I would like to enter my formal written statement for the record, if there are no objections at this time, and will 

just take a couple minutes for comments, if that would be OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are happy to put all the nominees’ statements in the record, as if read, and have your comments. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear at this hearing. Also, I would like to convey my 

thanks to Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mikulski for those introductions, which were certainly somewhat over the top for a simple 

aerospace engineer from a small town. So I am very grateful for the 

sentiments I have heard also from Senators Hutchison and Nelson. 

They are very gratifying. 

We are here today at a time which is a watershed moment for 

the space program. The timing was brought to us in the saddest 

possible way by the loss of Columbia in February of 2003 and our 

efforts since then to regroup from that loss and to move on. The 

timing is forced upon us. But it does produce a watershed moment, 

and that watershed has been crossed. 

In the wake of the failure investigation from Columbia, it has become clear that the United States needs to look in new directions 

and to look beyond where we have been with our program in the 

last several decades. In the words of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, the United States is not going to abandon human 

space flight. But for the foreseeable future, it will be expensive, difficult, and dangerous. The goals that we seek out should be worthy 

of the cost and the risk. 

I think it is now understood that a human space flight program 

focused only on the completion of the International Space Station 

and the servicing of that Station with the Shuttle does not qualify 

as a goal which is worthy of the expense, the risk, and difficulty 

of human space flight. 

Now President Bush has seen beyond that and has proposed a 

new program. It is the right strategic program. It is the right strategic direction for the United States civil space program and I support it wholeheartedly. I have no doubt that the Members of this 

Committee have had access to some of my written record on this 

point and know that this topic is the one closest to my heart with 

regard to the direction of the program. 

There are many who say that the proposals President Bush has 

made cannot be afforded. I did a little homework and I would point 

out something which may not be generally realized. We look back 

at the Apollo years as a time when NASA, received essentially all 

the money that it needed, all the money that it wanted even. I do 

not believe that that was actually the case, having looked at the 

12

record. But that is the mythology of the time, was that NASA was 

in a funding-unlimited period for the Apollo program. 

Well, the Apollo years, viewed more broadly, spanned the period 

from 1959 through 1974, at which time we had finished the ApolloSkylab missions. So it is the early part of the Agency, its first 16 

years, if you will. If you compare the funding received, the funding 

which was made available on behalf of the citizens to the Space 

Agency in that first 16 years, it is within a couple of percent of the 

funding which has been made available to the Agency in the last 

16 years of its existence. You can mess around with that number 

a little bit, depending on which inflation adjustment you care to 

use, but it is not more than a couple of percent difference, no matter how you calculate it. 

So NASA has been well funded by the Nation in the last 16 years 

of its existence, as well funded as it was in the first. If we continue 

to receive the President’s budget allocations, we can do the program that the President has proposed. We know that we can do it, 

because we have done it. 

The Apollo years are often looked at as the period when the 

agency had a single mission focus. That, too, is mythology. That, 

too, is incorrect. During the Apollo years, in addition to executing 

that program, which will forever remain as one of mankind’s greatest achievements, we also executed a host of planetary missions in 

the Mariner, Ranger, Surveyor, Voyager, and Viking series. We executed earth science missions beginning with TIROS and Nimbus 

and moving on to ESSA and other weather and earth resources satellite programs. 

We executed astronomy missions, such as the Orbiting Solar Observatory. We executed a robust, bold aeronautics program, which 

featured 199 flights of the X–15 with only one fatality. We did fundamental work in the development of airline transport propulsion 

and air safety management. We did the fundamental aerodynamics 

work that led to the ability to design and build the Space Shuttle. 

All the lifting body research done at Edwards Air Force Base to 

precede the development of the Shuttle was accomplished during 

the late sixties and early seventies. 

So NASA has proved in its past that we can do more than one 

thing with the funding that you and your colleagues have provided 

to us, and I look forward to the opportunity to prove to you that 

we can do that again. 

Thank you very much and I stand ready to take any of your 

questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Dr. 

Griffin follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, NOMINEE TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators. I am honored to appear before you today 

as President Bush’s nominee to be the next NASA Administrator. As you know, I 

have spent a long career in the aerospace business, and I believe that I will need 

all of that experience, and more, behind me if confirmed in this position. I look forward to the challenge. 

If confirmed as Administrator, my priorities in executing the duties of that office, 

consistent with the President’s Vision for Space Exploration, will be:

13

• Flying the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010.

• Bringing a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as possible after 

Shuttle retirement.

• Developing a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics 

at NASA, consistent with the redirection of the Human Spaceflight Program to 

focus on exploration.

• Completing the International Space Station in a manner consistent with our 

International partner commitments and the needs of human exploration.

• Encouraging the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector.

• Establishing a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for 

later missions to Mars and other destinations.

The aftermath of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia on February 1, 

2003 brought us to a watershed moment in the American civil space program. 

Choices had to be made. The President has put forth a choice, a strategic vision for 

the Space Program. That vision has been enunciated with exceptional clarity, and 

has been subjected to considerable public debate for over a year. I think it may be 

said that, while differences of opinion exist, the President’s proposal has attained 

broad strategic acceptance. It is now understood that the International Space Station, supported by the Space Shuttle, cannot be the centerpiece of the Nation’s 

Human Spaceflight Program. The strategic vision for the U.S. manned space program is of exploration beyond low Earth orbit. 

It is a daring move at any time for a national leader to call for the bold exploration of unknown worlds, a major effort at the very limit of the technical state of 

the art. And it was the same way back in 1492, when Queen Isabella overrode King 

Ferdinand’s reluctance and backed Columbus’ voyage to ‘‘the New World,’’ the first 

step in the creation of Spain’s colonial empire. But few recall that 1492 was a key 

year in the history of Western civilization, entirely apart from the European ‘‘discovery’’ of the New World. The big news that year was the re-conquest of Granada 

after a ten-year siege by Spanish forces, an event which essentially marked the conclusion of an eight-century struggle against the Moorish occupation of Spain. With 

the Spanish treasury depleted, many—including King Ferdinand—believed that it 

was not the time for the nation to be embarking on what was, in that era, an effort 

right at the edge of what was technologically possible. 

But whether or not the story of Queen Isabella pledging her jewels to back the 

voyage is true, it is a matter of record that Isabella, Queen of Aragon in her own 

right, understood that several other nations were capable of sponsoring Columbus, 

and likely would if Spain did not. England, France, and Italy had arisen as European powers while Spain had struggled against the Moors, and Spain’s tiny neighbor, Portugal, had prospered through the growth of her maritime prowess under 

Prince Henry the Navigator. The ‘‘discovery’’ of the New World had happened before 

and would have happened again, whether or not Columbus had ever sailed from 

Palos. One way or another, European settlement of the New World was inevitable; 

however, it was Isabella’s bold action that secured Spain’s role in that future. If Columbus failed, she would be discredited, but if he succeeded, Spain would succeed, 

and would become preeminent among the nations of her time—and that was the 

way it happened. 

And that is the way it is today. In the twenty-first century and beyond, for America to continue to be preeminent among nations, it is necessary for us also to be 

the preeminent spacefaring nation. Or are we willing to accept the world of a generation or two hence where other nations will be engaged in the development of the 

Solar System, and we are not? If not, then it is time to recognize that we have 

squandered a once-insurmountable lead in the arts and sciences of spaceflight. The 

best we can say for ourselves today is that our grounded Space Shuttle is much 

more sophisticated than the operational vehicles belonging to the two nations which 

have sent people into space since we have last done so. 

None of this is to say that the United States should necessarily plan to ‘‘go it 

alone’’ in space exploration. Great nations must be prepared to do so when necessary, but it is equally true that great nations need allies and partners. There is 

room for these relationships in the President’s Vision for Space Exploration, and certainly we have benefited from the Russian capability to support the International 

Space Station during the two years in which the Shuttle has been grounded. But 

in the future, the United States should avoid dependence upon other nations for 

critical spacefaring systems. 

Many who share the President’s strategic vision for space exploration are nonetheless lukewarm in their support, believing it to be unaffordable or unsustainable. 

14

This concern is understandable. Former Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics, and Chair of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, Pete Aldridge, has pointed out that 

to be effective, the commitment to space exploration needs to be sustained over multiple Presidential Administrations and sessions of Congress. 

The strategic vision for space must therefore be broadly inclusive, to enable a consistent and appropriate level of financial support without disruptive funding peaks 

and valleys. The decision to have a robust space program is like the decision to have 

a capable military force—it cannot be made in one year and un-made in the next. 

The nation does not debate, each year, whether or not it will have such forces. A 

similarly sustained bipartisan commitment to American leadership in space is required. 

And, at least since the aftermath of the Challenger accident, 19 years ago, we 

have had exactly that commitment. In constant dollars, NASA has received approximately the same allocation of funding from the taxpayers in the last sixteen years—

the Space Station Era—as it received in its first 16 years—the Apollo Era. If we 

are less attracted to the results of the Station Era than of the Apollo Era, then we 

need to reconsider our goals and our manner of pursuing them. But if funding levels 

continue in accordance with the President’s plans, resources are sufficient to enable 

a U.S. return to the Moon, and, later, to go to Mars. The country has already demonstrated the consistent support that NASA must have over an extended period of 

time to execute a program of human exploration. We simply have been doing other 

things with that money. 

The arts and sciences of spaceflight are not restricted to human spaceflight. 

Robotic spacecraft such as those of Spirit and Opportunity have taken us, by proxy, 

to the surface of Mars. Galileo, Cassini and Voyager have taken us to Jupiter, Saturn, and the outer reaches of the Solar System. New Horizons will shortly set sail 

for Pluto, the last remaining planet (so far as we know) not yet visited by any spacecraft from Earth. And, of course, the Great Observatories, including the Hubble 

Space Telescope, Chandra, Spitzer, and Compton, have allowed us to extend our 

gaze to the very edge of the Universe, and back in time almost to its beginning. The 

images and the knowledge returned to us by these, our surrogates, have shaped our 

culture, our view of the Universe, and our place in it almost as powerfully as if 

human explorers had been present. As we undertake to redirect our Human 

Spaceflight Program, it is crucial that we do it without damaging NASA’s outstanding science programs, which have been among the crown jewels of the nation’s 

achievements. 

Those who claim that NASA cannot afford robust programs in both robotic science 

and manned spaceflight are mistaken. NASA in the Apollo Era was hardly the ‘‘single mission agency’’ in the simplified view that is often heard today. In addition to 

the manned spaceflight development programs of the time, NASA executed dozens 

of Explorer-class missions, a dozen Pioneer missions (including Pioneer 10 and 11 

to Jupiter and Saturn), Ranger 1–9, Surveyor 1–7, Mariner 1–10, the Orbiting Solar 

Observatory, Orbiting Geophysical Observatory, and Orbiting Astronomical Observatory series, and paid for most of the Viking missions to Mars, which were launched 

in 1975. Communications satellite development was initiated with Telstar and Early 

Bird, while the TIROS, NIMBUS, and ESSA series did the same for weather satellites. In addition to these robotic science and technology development missions, 

NASA also executed 199 X–15 flights (which still hold the speed record for piloted 

flight within the atmosphere), and accomplished an otherwise vigorous program of 

aeronautics development, including the liftingbody research which enabled the development of the Space Shuttle. This hardly seems the record of a ‘‘single mission 

agency.’’

My conclusion is that we as a nation can clearly afford well-executed, vigorous 

programs in both robotic and human space exploration as well as in aeronautics. 

We know this. We did it. NASA can do more than one thing at a time. 

The Nation is not going to abandon space exploration, human or robotic. Given 

this, the proper debate in a world of limited resources is over which goals to pursue. 

I believe that, if money is to be spent on space, there is little doubt that the huge 

majority of Americans would prefer to spend it on an exciting, outward-focused, destination-oriented program. And that is what the President’s Vision for Space Exploration is about. 

With that, I thank you, and stand ready to answer any questions you may have. 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name: Michael Douglas Griffin. 

15

2. Position to which nominated: Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

3. Date of Nomination: March 11, 2005. 

4. Address: Residence; Information not released to the public, Office; Space Department Head, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns 

Hopkins Road, Laurel, Maryland 20723–6099. 

5. Date and Place of Birth: November 1, 1949; Aberdeen, Maryland. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage).

Spouse: Rebecca Lee Hann Griffin Homemaker 

Daughter: Allison Renee Griffin 23 years 

Son: Daniel Buchanan Griffin 20 years 

Daughter: Eileen Kathryn Griffin 15 years 

Daughter: Kathleen Michelle Griffin 5 years 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended.

George Washington University M.S. Civil Engineering 1998

Loyola College of Maryland M.B.A. 1990

Johns Hopkins University M.S. Applied Physics 1983

University of Southern California M.S. Electrical Engineering 1979

University of Maryland Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering 1977

Catholic University M.S.E. Aerospace Science 1974

Johns Hopkins University B.A. Physics 1971

8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate 

to the position for which you are nominated.

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 

Space Department Head (3/04–4/05)

In-Q-Tel, Inc., Rosslyn, VA 

President & Chief Operating Officer (8/02–3/04)

Aerospace Consultant, Oak Hill, VA (8/01–8/02)

Orbital Sciences Corporation, Dulles, VA 

Chief Executive Officer, Magellan Systems, Inc. (7/00–8/01) 

Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer (1/98–7/00) 

General Manager, Space Systems Group (8/95–8/97)

Space Industries International, Inc., Houston, TX 

Senior Vice President, Program Development, and General Manager, Space Industries Division (2/94–8/95)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 

Chief Engineer (2/93–2/94) 

Associate Administrator for Exploration (9/91–2/93)

Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, Washington, DC 

Deputy for Technology (1/89–9/91)

Consultant, Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, Washington, DC 

Technical Director, Delta 183 Mission (11/87–1/89)

American Rocket Company, Camarillo, CA 

Director, Vehicle Systems and Integration (10/86–11/87)

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 

Principal Professional Staff, Space Department (9/79–10/86)

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 

Supervisor, Control Systems Design Group (8/77–9/79)

Computer Science Corporation, Silver Spring, MD 

Member of Technical Staff (4/74–10/74)

Link Division, Singer Corporation, Silver Spring, MD 

Principal Engineer (1/72–4/74)

9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time service or positions 

with federal, state, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the 

last five years. 

Chair, Review Board, Hubble Robotic System Deorbit Mission, for NASA Independent Program Analysis Office. 12/2004–03/2005. 

10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational or other institution within the last five 

years.

16

JHU Applied Physics Laboratory, Space Department Head, 03/2004-Present 

In-Q-Tel, Inc., President/Chief Operating Officer, 08/2002–03/2004

STRATCOM, Consultant, 07/2002–08/2002

Adroit Systems, Consultant, 03/2002–07/2002

Musk Foundation, Consultant, 01/2002–03/2002

Orbital Sciences Corp., Consultant, 10/2001–05/2002

Interlune, Inc., Board of Directors, 1999–2005. 

Ecliptic Enterprises, Board of Directors, Consultant, 01/2002–08/2002

Aerojet, Consultant 09/2001–09/2001

Orbital Sciences, Chief Technical Officer, 08/1995–08/2001

George Washington University, Advisory Board, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 2000–2004. 

University of Maryland, Advisory Board, Aerospace Engineering, 1997–2004. 

University of Virginia, Advisory Board, System Engineering, 1999–2000.

11. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or handicap.

Organization Dates 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1974–Present 

Director-at-Large 1999–2004

President-elect 2004–2005

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 2004–Present 

American Astronautical Society 1985–Present 

International Academy of Astronautics 1996–Present 

The Planetary Society 2003–Present 

Hidden Creek Country Club 1998–Present 

United States Golf Association 1999–Present 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 1988–Present 

None of the above organizations restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or handicap. 

12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? If so, indicate whether any 

campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are personally 

liable for that debt: No. 

13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, 

political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past 10 years.

Bush for President, 2000, $1000. 

Mikulski for Senate, 2004, $2000.

14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements.

Salutatorian, Aberdeen High School, 1967.

Maryland State Senatorial Scholarship (competitive), 1967–1971.

Outstanding Young Engineer, AIAA National Capitol Section, 1983.

Distinguished Public Service Medal, Department of Defense, 1986.

Aerospace Laurels Award (Delta 180), Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine, 1986.

Space Systems Medal, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,1988.

Nelson P. Jackson Award (Delta 181 Mission Team), National Space Club, 1989.

Significant Technical Accomplishment Award (Delta 183 Mission Team), American Defense Preparedness Association, 1989.

Exceptional Achievement Medal, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1994.

Centennial Medal, University of Maryland College of Engineering, 1994.

Fellow, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1994.

Barry M. Goldwater Educator Award, AIAA National Capitol Section, 1999.

Academy of Distinguished Alumni, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, U. of Md., 

1999.

17

Distinguished Alumnus Award, Clark School of Engineering, University of 

Maryland, 2000.

Fellow, American Astronautical Society, 2002.

Sustained Service Award, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 

2003.

15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have given on topics relevant 

to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of these 

publications unless otherwise instructed.

Editorials

Space News, ‘‘The Right Program’’, 1/19/04

Space News, ‘‘Heavy Lift on the Cheap’’, 3/01/04

Space News, ‘‘Exploration and Commercial Space’’, 5/17/04

Report

M.D. Griffin (co-author), ‘‘Extending Human Presence into the Solar System’’, 

Planetary Society Study, July 2004.

Textbook

Michael D. Griffin and James R. French, Space Vehicle Design, American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics, Washington, DC, 1991; 2nd Ed., AIAA, 

Reston, VA, 2004.

Technical Publications

1. M.D. Griffin, J.D. Anderson, Jr., and R. Diwakar, ‘‘Navier-Stokes Solutions 

for the Flowfield in an Internal Combustion Engine’’, AIAA Paper 76–403, AIAA 

9th Fluid and Plasmadynamics Conference, San Diego, CA, 14–16 July 1976.

2. M.D. Griffin and J.D. Anderson, Jr., ‘‘On the Application of Boundary Conditions to Time-Dependent Computations for Quasi-One-Dimensional Fluid 

Flows’’, Computers and Fluids, Vol. 5, pp. 127–137, 1977.

3. Michael Douglas Griffin, ‘‘Numerical Solutions for Two- and Three-Dimensional Non-Reacting Flows in an Internal Combustion Engine’’, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, 1977; also, 

University Microfilms Order #7805028.

4. M.D. Griffin, R. Diwakar, J.D. Anderson, Jr., and E. Jones, ‘‘Computational 

Fluid Dynamics Applied to Flows in an Internal Combustion Engine’’, AIAA 

Paper 78–057, AIAA 16th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Huntsville, AL, 16–18 

January 1978.

5. M.D. Griffin, R.T. Cunningham, and R. Eskenazi, ‘‘Vision-Based Guidance for 

an Automated Roving Vehicle’’, AIAA Paper 78–1294, AIAA Guidance and Control Conference, Palo Alto, CA, 7–9 August 1978.

6. M.D. Griffin, E. Jones, and J.D. Anderson, Jr., ‘‘A Computational Fluid Dynamic Technique Valid at the Centerline for Non-Axisymmetric Problems in Cylindrical Coordinates’’, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 30, pp. 352–360, 

March 1979.

7. M.D. Griffin and W.G. Breckenridge, ‘‘A Model for Testing Centerfinding Algorithms for Automated Optical Navigation’’, AAS Paper 79–124, American Astronautical Society Progress in Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 40, Part 1, 

‘‘Astrodynamics 1979’’.

8. M.D. Griffin, J.D. Anderson, Jr., and E. Jones, ‘‘Computational Fluid Dynamics Applied to Three-Dimensional Non-Reacting Inviscid Flows in an Internal 

Combustion Engine’’, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 101, pp. 367–

372, September 1979.

9. M.D. Griffin, J.R. Stevens, and J.L. Keirsey, ‘‘Preliminary Inlet Design Studies for a Hypersonic Wide-Area Defense Missile’’, Proceedings, 12th Naval 

Aeroballistics Symposium, NSRDC, Carderock, MD, 1981.

10. M.D. Griffin, ‘‘Calculation of Inviscid Air Capture and Additive Drag for 3–

D Supersonic Inlet Flows’’, Proceedings, 1983 JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, 

Monterey, CA, 14–18 February 1983.

11. M.D. Griffin, F.S. Billig, and M.E. White, ‘‘Applications of Computational 

Techniques in the Design of Ramjet Engines’’, Proceedings, 16th International 

Aeronautical Congress, 6th International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines 

(ISABE), Paris, 6–10 June 1983.

12. Michael D. Griffin, ‘‘Computational Fluid Dynamics: A Tool for Missile Design’’, Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Vol. 4, July–September 1983.

18

13. M.D. Griffin, T.E. Strikwerda, and D.G. Grant, ‘‘Space Telescope System 

Study Report’’, JHU/APL Report SDO 6941, Laurel, MD, November 1983.

14. M.D. Griffin, T.E. Strikwerda, and D.G. Grant, ‘‘Space Telescope Alternate 

Fine Guidance Sensor Design Study’’, JHU/APL Report SDO 7083, Laurel, MD, 

November 1983.

15. M.D. Griffin, et. al., ‘‘Polar BEAR Mission Program Plan’’, JHU/APL Report 

SDO/PAO–0816, Laurel, MD, March, 1984.

16. M.D. Griffin, et. al., ‘‘Satellite-to-Satellite Gravity Experiment (SAGE) Conceptual Design Study’’, Vol. 1, Technical Plan, JHU/APL Report SDO 7312.1, 

Laurel, MD, June 1984.

17. M.D. Griffin, T.E. Strikwerda, and D.G. Grant, ‘‘The Space Telescope Alternate Fine Guidance Sensor’’, AIAA Paper 84–1850–CP, AIAA Guidance and 

Control Conference, Seattle, WA, 20–22 August 1984; also, Johns Hopkins APL 

Technical Digest, Vol. 6, Jan.–Mar. 1985.

18. M.D. Griffin, et. al., ‘‘Space Infrared Telescope Facility Pointing Control System Analysis’’, JHU/APL Report SDO–7434, Laurel, MD, October 1984.

19. M.D. Griffin, et. al., ‘‘Polar BEAR Mission Interface Control Document’’, 

JHU/APL Report SDO/PAO–0817, Laurel, MD, August, 1984.

20. M.D. Griffin and J.H. Jerger, ‘‘Preliminary Design of the Industrial Launch 

Vehicle’’, Proceedings, AIAA/DARPA Meeting on Lightweight Satellite Systems, 

4–6 August 1987.

21. M.D. Griffin and M.J. Rendine, ‘‘Delta 180/Vector Sum: The First Powered 

Space Intercept’’, AIAA Paper 88–0161, AIAA 26th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 

Reno, Nevada, 11–14 January 1988.

22. M.D. Griffin and W.R. Claybaugh, ‘‘The Cost of Access to Space’’, Journal 

of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 47, pps. 119–122, 1994.

23. Michael D. Griffin, ‘‘Managing the Exploration of the Moon and Mars’’, AAS 

Paper 95–476, Strategies for Mars: A Guide to Human Exploration, American 

Astronautical Society Science and Technology Series, Volume 86, 1996.

24. M.D. Griffin and W.R. Claybaugh, ‘‘On the Economics of Staging for Reusable Launch Vehicles’’, 1st Conference on Commercial Development of Space, 

Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF–96), Albuquerque, NM, 7–11 January 1996.

16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and specify the subject matter of 

each testimony.

Date Committee Subject 

May 8, 2003 House Science Committee NASA Orbital Space Plane Program 

October 16, 2003 House Science Committee The Future of Human Space Flight 

March 10, 2003 House Science Committee President’s Vision for Space Exploration 

April 7, 2004 Senate Commerce, Science, Transportation Near Earth Objects 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. 

There is an existing private 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan in connection 

with my present employer, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. As noted elsewhere, if confirmed by the Senate, I will resign my current position, and will at that time withdraw the funds currently held in this account. 

As noted elsewhere, I own interests in certain companies as part of the In-Q-Tel 

Employee Investment Plan. The companies in which I own such an interest are 

itemized in Section B, Paragraphs (3) and (6), below, and in Section E, Paragraph 

1. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? No such commitments or arrangements exist. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated.

19

The following securities holdings present a potential conflict of interest under 18 

U.S.C. § 208(a), although it has been determined that it is not necessary at this time 

for me to divest these interests: DuPont, Electro Energy Incorporated, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, Exxon Mobil, Honeywell, Nanosys, and Verizon. 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last 5 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of 

interest in the position to which you have been nominated.

JHU Applied Physics Laboratory, Space Department Head, 04/2004—present 

In-Q-Tel, Inc., President/Chief Operating Officer, 08/2002–03/2004

STRATCOM, Consultant, 07/2002–08/2002

Adroit Systems, Consultant, 03/2002–07/2002

Musk Foundation, Consultant, 01/2002–03/2002

Orbital Sciences Corp., Consultant, 10/2001–05/2002

Ecliptic Enterprises, Consultant, 01/2002–08/2002

Aerojet, Consultant, 09/2001–09/2001

Orbital Sciences, Chief Technical Officer, 08/1995–08/2001

George Washington Univ., Advisory Board, Aerospace Engineering, 2000–2004. 

University of Maryland, Advisory Board, Aerospace Engineering, 1997–2004. 

University of Virginia, Advisory Board, System Engineering, 1999–2000.

5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy: There have been no such activities. 

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

If confirmed as NASA Administrator, I will resign my position as Space Department Head at the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), a University Affiliated Research Center operated by Johns Hopkins University (Hopkins). Furthermore, pursuant to 5 CFR § 2635.502, for one year after I terminate that position, I will not 

participate in any particular matter involving specific parties in which Hopkins is 

a party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate. 

If confirmed, I will also resign my position on the board of directors of, and will 

not serve as President of, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

(AIAA). Pursuant to 5 CFR § 2635.502, for a period of one year after the termination 

of these positions, I will not participate in any particular matter involving specific 

parties in which AIAA is a party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to 

participate. 

In addition, AIAA is the publisher of a textbook, Space Vehicle Design, which I 

co-authored and which is in its second edition. I continue to receive royalties for this 

work. For so long as this arrangement is in effect, I will have a covered relationship 

with AIAA under 5 CFR § 2635.502. Therefore, I will not participate in any particular matter involving specific parties in which AIAA is a party or represents a 

party, unless I am authorized to participate. I will not write any future revisions 

to this textbook while serving as Administrator. 

Finally, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), I will not participate personally and 

substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect on 

my financial interests or those of any other person whose interests are imputed to 

me, unless I first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to section 208(b)(1), or qualify 

for a regulatory exemption, pursuant to section 208(b)(2). I understand that the following securities holdings present a potential conflict of interest under section 

208(a), although it has been determined that it is not necessary at this time for me 

to divest these interests: DuPont, Electro Energy, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, 

Exxon Mobil, Honeywell, Nanosys, and Verizon. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics by, or been the 

subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association, 

disciplinary committee, or other professional group? No. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any federal, 

state, or other law enforcement authority of any federal, state, county, or municipal 

entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? No. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere ) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? No. 

20

5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination: 

There is no such information. 

6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any other basis? No. 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Your predecessor served my assistant at the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. In the past year, as Chairman 

of the Appropriations Committee, I have traveled around the NASA 

area considerably. When we heard that he was going to step down, 

I have to say that everywhere I went, people told me I should look 

you up and make certain that you were interested and would take 

the position, if we could convince the President to appoint you. So 

we welcome your appointment. 

I will say to the Members of the Committee, we just checked 

with the floor, and if the members will agree and meet with us off 

the floor after the first vote, we will take the emergency action of 

reporting Dr. Griffin’s nomination right away, because of the timeframe that we have heard exists for getting Dr. Griffin confirmed 

in order to proceed with the difficult job that he has. 

May I ask, Mr. Boardman, if you would make your opening statement? Then we will ask questions, let each member ask questions, 

of each one of you as we go through the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, NOMINEE TO BE

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you, Chairman Stevens and Ranking 

Member Inouye, for the opportunity to speak with you this morning 

in the Committee. I would also like to thank Senator Schumer from 

my home state for a very gracious introduction. 

I am honored to be nominated to be nominated for this position 

by President Bush and if confirmed as Federal Railroad Administrator, I look forward to adding value to Secretary Mineta’s team 

at the U.S. DOT. 

I am pleased that I have Joanne with me. And I am not the rocket scientist up here, Michael, but it is the support of my wife and 

family that are watching that makes my life worthwhile. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You can check her out as an engineer on 

the railroad. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOARDMAN. If confirmed as the Federal Railroad Administrator, I would like to work with this Committee, other Senate committees, House committees, and those interested in railroad transportation, to further the security, safety, reliability, environmental 

21

improvements, and economic competitiveness of the railroad industry and of this nation. 

If confirmed, there are three areas that I would like to work on 

specifically and begin to concentrate on. The first one is safety. And 

while we are not doing rockets, a railroad system is a very complex 

operation, whether it is freight or whether it is a passenger operation. You cannot be complacent about safety. 

Constant attention to detail is necessary and is required both in 

the technical and in the operational sense of the railroad. And I believe that we also have to pay attention to the ergonomics and the 

human factors in railroad transportation in order to ensure a safe 

operation. And I will be paying attention to that. 

Second is intercity passenger service, Amtrak, commuter lines, 

corridor services. Congress and the Administration need to work together on those existing services to make improvements, to restructure, to reform, to maintain intercity passenger rail across this nation today. By working together, we will demonstrate our desire to 

have a workable and publicly valued passenger transportation 

service for our nation. 

I do not believe that a current one-size-fits-all model works for 

our nation in intercity passenger rail. And if confirmed, I will 

spend my time and my energy working to bring about a new era 

for America’s intercity passenger rail service. 

And finally, I will concentrate on the human factors and staff development at DOT, and the FRA. If we are going to reform passenger rail and develop a safety strategy that will meet and exceed 

—and I think we need to exceed—the public’s expectations on safety, then I will need to concentrate on building an organization that 

will both support and be supported to accomplish those changes. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr. 

Boardman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BOARDMAN, NOMINEE TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Thank you, Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye, for giving me the opportunity to visit with the Committee. I would also like to thank Senator Schumer, 

from my home State of New York, for that gracious introduction. 

I am very honored to have been nominated for this position by President Bush. 

If confirmed as Federal Railroad Administrator, I look forward to adding value to 

Secretary Mineta’s team at the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

I am also pleased to introduce Joanne Boardman to you, as my wife and partner 

for over 30 years. I know that my children Joe, Kathryn, Emily and Philip are 

watching this if they can find a location to do so, along with my other family members and friends. It is through their encouragement and support that I am here. 

If confirmed as Federal Railroad Administrator, I plan to work closely with this 

and other Senate and House committees to improve railroad safety and security, reliability, environmental impacts, and economic competitiveness. 

There are three initial issues that deserve my attention from the start. 

First and foremost, safety. I believe that we, as a society and as an industry, can 

never be complacent about safety. Railroads are among the most complex enterprises operated in the world today. Constant attention to detail is required, both in 

the technical and operational sense. I believe in understanding human factors and 

the environment within which they work, and making subsequent improvements, 

based on that understanding, that lead to safer performance. 

Second, intercity passenger rail. Congress and the Administration must work together to reform the existing, failing system. By doing so, we will demonstrate our 

desire to have a workable and a publicly-valued passenger rail service in our nation. 

22

I do not believe that the current one-size-fits-all model works. If confirmed I will 

work tirelessly to bring about a new era for America’s intercity passenger rail. 

Finally, FRA staff development. If we are looking to reform passenger rail and 

working to develop a safety strategy that will meet and exceed the public’s expectations, then I will need to concentrate on building an organization that will both support and be supported to accomplish those changes. 

Thank You. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I am happy to answer any questions you may have of me. 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name: Joseph H. Boardman. 

2. Position to which nominated: Federal Railroad Administrator. 

3. Date of Nomination: March 17, 2005. 

4. Address: Residence; Information not released to the public, Office; 50 Wolf Rd. 

Albany, NY 12232. 

5. Date and Place of Birth: December 23, 1948; Rome Hospital, N. James St. 

Rome, NY 13440. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage). 

Spouse: Joanne R. (Griffith) Boardman, Homemaker. Children; Joseph Jr. 27; 

Emily Beth 23; Philip James 21. 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended. 

BS Cornell University, Ithaca NY May 1975; MS Binghamton University, Binghamton NY May 1983. 

8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate 

to the position for which you are nominated. 

Manager of the Rome NY, Transit Dept; Manager Rome Parking Authority and 

General Manager, Utica Transit Authority December 1975–July 1981 (Rome Transit 

position began in 1975, Parking 1979, Utica 1980) Commissioner of Public Transportation, Broome County, NY Jul. 1981–Dec. 1988; Chief Operating Officer and Principal, Progressive Transportation Services Inc., Dec. 1988–Feb. 1995; Commissioner, 

First Deputy Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner for NYS Department of 

Transportation, Feb. 1995–Present. 

9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time service or positions 

with Federal, State, or local governments other than those listed above, within the 

last five years: None. 

10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent 

representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or 

other business, enterprise, educational or other institution within the last five years. 

Member of the Executive Board for the Transportation Research Board (TRB), 

and currently 2005–2006 Chairperson; Member of the Board of Directors, and currently Chair of the Standing Committee on Rail Transportation for American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 

11. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or handicap. 

Lifetime member of the Roman Catholic Church (St. Patrick’s, Taberg, NY); Life 

member of the VFW Post #2246 (Rome, NY) since 5/19/04. 

12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? No. 

13. itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the past 

10 years. 

I have contributed $1,000 to George Pataki (Candidate for Governor, New York) 

every year for the past 10 years for his annual April Fund raiser. 

14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements. 

United States Air Force Good Conduct, Marksmanship, and Viet Nam Service 

awards; Governor Alfred E. Smith Award for Public Administration 2003; New York 

State Society of Professional Engineers President’s Award of Excellence–June 2001; 

Empire State Passengers Association President’s Award–Feb. 1999; AASHTO Award 

23

for Environmental Excellence–1999; AMTRAK State Partner Award–1999; March of 

Dimes Service to Humanity Award–Oct. 1998. 

15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have given on topics relevant 

to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of these 

publications unless otherwise instructed. 

I have authored no articles, columns, or books relating to the position to which 

I have been nominated; I give speeches nearly every week; sometimes, several times 

a week. I generally do not have written speeches that I use. All presentations are 

based on my responsibilities as Commissioner of Transportation for the State of NY; 

and, at times, those speeches would include subjects that would be relevant to railroads. The speeches that are written are maintained by the Department Public Relations office. 

16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and specify the subject matter of 

each testimony. 

I have never testified to Congress in a non-governmental capacity. 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. 

New York State Deferred Compensation account; please refer to my financial disclosure report. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? No. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. 

Upon confirmation, I would resign from my position of Commissioner New York 

State Department of Transportation, and from AASHTO and TRB. Please refer to 

my Ethics Agreement. 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last 5 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of 

interest in the position to which you have been nominated: None. 

5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy. 

As Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, I have been active in the debate on the future of intercity passenger rail in New York State; in 

the Northeast Corridor, and nationally. I have also been active in Freight Rail 

issues as a part of the AASHTO ‘‘Bottom Line of Reports’’ that were produced to 

educate Congress and the Administration of the need for policy development in the 

area of freight movement on the trade routes of the United States and North America. 

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

If it is found that I have a conflict of interest, or an appearance of such a conflict, 

I will remove myself from the conflict if that is possible, or mitigate, satisfy or otherwise resolve the conflict or appearance of conflict to the satisfaction of the Committee and the Administration. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics by, or been the 

subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association, 

disciplinary committee, or other professional group? No. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any federal, 

state, or other law enforcement authority of any federal, state, county, or municipal 

entity, other that for a minor traffic offense? No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? No. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere ) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? No. 

24

5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination: 

None. 

6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any other basis? If so, please 

explain. 

There have been various labor grievances (some racial, some sex based) where I 

have responded for my employer as the official in charge of and accountable for 

management decisions that resulted in those grievances. I recall no instances that 

resulted in a finding of discrimination. In none of these instances has there been 

any personal accusation of discrimination. 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes, to the best of my ability. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Inouye, do you have any questions of the 

witness? 

Senator INOUYE. If I may, I would like to yield to Senator Lautenberg because of the special hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lautenberg is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And I ask, first of 

all, unanimous consent that my full statement would be put in the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, and Senator Schumer’s statement introducing Mr. Boardman will appear, too. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman: 

Good morning and thank you for holding this hearing on the nominees to fill these 

important positions. 

NASA is an agency that faces many challenges, ranging from documented problems with financial management to accusations of waste and abuse. And these are 

credible charges made at the former head of the agency. Despite these concerns, the 

President’s 2006 budget proposal would increase funding for NASA while cutting 

many other agencies. 

On the other hand we have Amtrak. Under new management, Amtrak has overhauled its financial accounting system and trimmed its workforce by 20 percent—

while adding 20 percent more trains and reaching record ridership nationwide. 

Yet the President proposes to bankrupt our passenger rail system. Killing Amtrak 

would strand the 25 million passengers who chose inter-city rail service last year—

the equivalent of 125 thousand fully-booked 757 airplanes. 

Of course, Amtrak not only provides inter-city rail service. It also provides infrastructure and operational assistance to commuter rail lines that carry 850 thousand 

American workers every weekday. If we kill Amtrak, we will cut off these workers 

from their jobs—or force them onto already crowded roads, bridges and tunnels. 

Americans need Amtrak every day. But we needed it most when our nation was 

attacked on September 11, 2001. When our commercial aviation system was shut 

down on 9/11, stranded passengers turned to Amtrak to reunite them with their 

25

families. Thank goodness they had that choice. That tragic day reminded us that 

our nation cannot depend entirely on one mode of transportation. 

Mr. Boardman made this argument himself as chairman of the rail committee of 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. In their 

intercity rail report, he wrote, ‘‘In normal times passenger rail service was important. In the ‘new normal’ times it is critical.’’

Since the Federal Government created Amtrak 34 years ago, we have invested 

less than an average of one billion dollars a year in rail infrastructure and operations—not nearly enough for a world-class system. Germany, which has a modern, 

high-speed rail system, invested nine billion dollars in passenger rail in 2003 alone. 

Instead of trying to kill Amtrak, we must build a passenger rail system that is as 

good as any in the world. 

Of course, oversight of Amtrak’s finances is just one of the duties of the Federal 

Railroad Administrator. The primary job is to carry out and enforce the laws relating to rail safety, and I hope Mr. Boardman is up to that task. 

I want to thank all of these nominees for being here today to share their views 

and ideas with us, and I look forward to working with them throughout the confirmation process. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Just in a short word, Mr. Chairman, we 

are fortunate to have the kind of candidates for these lofty positions that we do have. And I think fair to say that Amtrak and passenger rail service is a primary concern of mine, not the only one. 

But I am worried, Mr. Boardman, what might happen if Amtrak, 

for instance, stopped running the Empire service from New York 

City to Niagara Falls or the Adirondack trains from New York City 

to Montreal. 

Now, would—the city of New York—you have experience there—

be prepared to pick up the costs to continue those operations? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Let me answer, Senator, if I could, we right now 

financially support the Adirondack service that goes into Montreal. 

And we have increased that support substantially, almost four 

times, in just the last few years. So there is strong support for passenger transportation. The Empire service was created under the 

original Amtrak in 1971. Which means that the State of New York 

is not required to actually support that service at this time. 

However, New York provides over $1,400,000,000 a year to support public transportation, including New York City, and has a 

long history of doing so. That said, I do not think any state or any 

organization today will voluntarily step up and add more dollars 

unless called upon. And I think that what is important to understand in New York, and we have been trying to do that, is that it 

is critical that we have intercity passenger transportation on the 

Empire corridor, on the Adirondack corridor to Montreal, and on 

the Northeast corridor. We are financially committed, on the state 

level, to ensuring that service. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, but Mr. Boardman, you are aware of 

the fact that the recommendation by the President would abolish 

much, if not all, of Amtrak’s services. And I asked you the question 

deliberately about the service on the two lines we were just discussing. Is New York State—and you said that, you know, you said 

that no state is going to step up voluntarily to do it. The question 

is: With your unique experience in New York State and in railroading for such a long time, transportation, will New York State 

be able to fully take over the responsibility of running the railroad 

from New York City on north in these two lines? 

26

Mr. BOARDMAN. I do not know whether they will fully take over 

that responsibility, but they will be committed to supporting intercity passenger rail. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, is supporting with the money included or supporting it in a philosophical kind of thing? Because 

what we are looking at is a question of whether or not we have the 

resources to continue to provide this intercity passenger rail service. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. No, support in the sense of money support. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So New York State, it is in your belief that 

New York State would step up and provide all of the services that 

are presently there on their own, without assistance from Amtrak. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I would not say it that way. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I know you would not, but I want you to. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I know you do. I can use the rocket——

Senator LAUTENBERG. We are going to get along fine, no matter——

Mr. BOARDMAN. I can use the rocket scientist line again here, 

but——

Senator LAUTENBERG. No. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I understand. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You might be able to run all kinds of 

things, but without the appropriate amount of fuel and resource, it 

cannot happen. Now as Chairman of AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Rail Transportation, you are responsible for the report 

that stressed the primary role of the Federal Government to ensure 

adequate funding for passenger rail. Now, we have a zero proposal, 

a proposal of zero level for funding on passenger rail in this Fiscal 

Year 2006 budget. If confirmed, how do you square your position 

that AASHTO with the administration’s view? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. If confirmed, I believe we have to work in collaboration. And there will not be zero. If we can reform and make 

the changes necessary to support rail transportation, that will not 

occur. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So you include reform as a condition for 

funding. Now, we do not have time to discuss this. We will—you 

and I will discuss it personally, privately. But when you throw in 

a condition like that, when there has been so much cost reduction, 

personnel reduction and so forth. Mr. Gunn has led a very successful attempt to reduce the costs there. 

Now, that constitutes a manner of reform. But we have never 

provided the capital to Amtrak that is required. If we spent $1 billion a year on average, it was a lot. In Germany, they spent $9 billion in 1 year. And if you see the product that they have, it is not 

just money, it is will also. 

How do you ensure that the freight railroads, for instance, will 

give reasonable scheduling priority so that the freight delays will 

not hamper passenger service, which often occurs? Do you have a 

view on that? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, I think that the freight railroads have been 

supportive and have to be supportive and have to be supportive of 

passenger rail under the law at this point in time. I think that this 

Congress has been helpful to the freight industry with the 4.3 cent 

27

tax that it gave back to the freight industry. I think that we need 

to expect that the freight industry is going to support what we 

need as public policy. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So might we suggest that the same thing 

should be done with Amtrak, to give them the kind of support that 

they need? If it was a significant assist for the freight service, then 

why should we not try to duplicate that for passenger rail service? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I can understand and I think in collaboration, 

we will. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the 

courtesy, Senator Inouye. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am informed that we are now on the defense 

supplemental, and Senator Inouye and I may be called. We will 

continue the hearing, though. If we do, I hope the others will stay 

here. We have not been called yet. 

Let me ask a couple questions right now. 

Dr. Griffin, NASA currently takes a series of photographs from 

space to deal with the training of pilots, particularly in order to get 

through some of the mountain passes in our state. Until recently, 

one out of 11 pilots in Alaska died in plane crashes. And we have 

established what we call a Five Star Medallion Safety Program. We 

would like to have you come up and take a look at that and see 

what you might do to further the goal of reducing that death rate. 

Are you willing to come up to do that? 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Sir, as a general aviation flight instructor and pilot, 

if confirmed, I would absolutely love the opportunity to come up 

and see that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Now, Mr. Boardman, we had a substantial conversation yesterday. And I appreciate your courtesy in discussing with me some of 

the problems of the railroads. But I understand, and I do not want 

to embarrass Mrs. Boardman, but I understand that when you 

asked for her hand, you asked not only for a marriage but also for 

her to go to Alaska to homestead. And she accepted one and refused the other. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Obviously it is time now, I think, perhaps you 

should take a trip to Alaska and bring Mrs. Boardman, so she can 

see what she missed, when you come to inspect the Alaska Railroad. Are you willing to make such a trip? 

Mrs. BOARDMAN. For thirty years. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The answer is yes, now, thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Whether I am confirmed or not, it seems. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would like to accelerate your confirmation, too, but I do not think we have the ability to do so, because 

we can only do this on an emergency basis. 

Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in 

the interest of time, I am going to be brief, because our nominee 

for NASA is obviously the right person at the right time of leaderVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:55 Nov 17, 2005 Jkt 023363 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\23363.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
28

ship. I am going to submit, with your permission, a number of detailed questions that I would like to have for the record, as we, 

well, as Dr. Griffin leads this agency out of the wilderness. It has 

been wandering in the wilderness for a period of years. And it 

needs the strong leadership that I think that he is going to offer. 

I want to, if I may, just take a couple of moments here to have 

you state for the record what we have already talked about in private—which I find your views compelling—on such as using your 

ability in your new position to enable NASA to improve its decision-making process on, example, accepting certain risks before we 

return to flight. Would you comment for the record on that? 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir. Obviously, if confirmed, the very first issue 

on the plate, superceding all others, is to look into the return to 

flight work which has gone on in the more than 2 years since we 

lost Columbia, to understand it, to understand who has done it, 

what has been done, to understand what the areas of concerns still 

are. I have been in the unfortunate position of having chaired accident boards, fortunately that did not involve people. But when a 

lot of money is at stake, one equally well takes such things seriously. And I am very aware that accident boards make recommendations that seem good to them at the time, but which may 

not in all cases be capable of implementation. 

We will, of course, face that same thing with the return to flight. 

And in fact, those who pay attention to the space media note that 

there is a certain amount of contentiousness ongoing right now as 

to exactly what state of completion our Shuttle return to flight exercise can reach before we decide to go and accept the risk remaining. 

So nothing will be more important to me than looking into all 

that. Also, as the Columbia Accident Investigation Board so thoroughly elucidated, one of the things we want to make sure is that 

we hear from all parties, that there is no information that needs 

to reach the top that fails to reach the top. And that will be a huge 

priority. 

Senator NELSON. And I confirm your concern as a leader, that I 

have often felt that the last two tragedies that we have had in 

NASA, first Challenger and then Columbia, although destruction 

for different technical reasons, really, it was a common theme. And 

that is that the top level management was not listening to the engineers on the line. And that was in fact the case with Challenger 

in 1986 and again with Columbia. So I thank you for that. 

Share with the Committee your concern about the potential hiatus where we would be without an American vehicle for human access to space perhaps in a situation for years relying upon the Russians and where the geopolitics would take us in those years, that 

suddenly Russia might not be a reliable person, a reliable partner, 

for access to space, for human access to space. Share your thoughts 

about that hiatus between the schedule of 2010, shutting down the 

Shuttle, and several years later possibly before we would have the 

crew exploration vehicle ready to go. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Senator. As a matter of fact, my second 

priority, if confirmed, would be to address exactly the gap to which 

you refer. Because I think this is an area that means a lot to me. 

As a matter of what it takes to be a great Nation in the 21st cenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:55 Nov 17, 2005 Jkt 023363 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\23363.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
29

tury, I do not believe that we would wish to see a situation where 

the United States is dependent upon any partner, reliable or unreliable, at any time, for human access to space or, for that matter, 

any access to space. 

We need our own capabilities. Two Nations have now put people 

into space since the United States has last done so. I do not like 

that. The program that NASA has outlined so far features a new 

crew exploration vehicle. We can call it what we will. And it nominally comes on line in 2014. I think that is too far out. President 

Bush said not later than 2014. He did not say we could not be 

smart and do it early. And that would be my goal. 

I would call the Committee’s attention to the fact that when the 

United States developed its Gemini spacecraft, it did so from contract award to first flight in a period of something like 38, 39 

months, a little over 3 years. Even the Apollo spacecraft, a much 

more challenging development, whose development was in fact interrupted by a fatal fire that killed three astronauts, even the Apollo spacecraft was brought from contract award to fruition in no 

more than 6 years. 

It seems unacceptable to me that it should take from 2005 to 

2014 to do the same thing when we already know how. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your time has expired. I am sorry. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I would only ask at some point 

in the nominee’s testimony, if he might share his vision for the future of NASA, because I think we will hear a refreshing statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

It is my understanding that the Senator’s questions as submitted 

for the record would not be intended to hold up the confirmation 

process. 

Senator NELSON. Oh, absolutely not. Absolutely not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hutchison? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

I have been trying to work on the priorities of the Subcommittee. 

And one of the priorities was the question that was just asked by 

Senator Nelson. It has, as I have discussed with Dr. Griffin, been 

of great concern to me that we would have a 5-year hiatus on the 

books in which we would be able to put our own people in space. 

And I appreciate that that is also a concern of yours. 

I think it is, in addition to a potential problem in stopping the 

science that is done at the Shuttle, I mean at the Space Station, 

I think it is a security issue for our country when we are seeing, 

as you pointed out, other countries going into space. 

So I will be looking. And we will be holding hearings. And certainly when I am able to hold our Subcommittee hearings, I will 

have you back, and we will be able to discuss these things more 

fully. But of the priorities that I have after return to flight, the 5-

year hiatus is the biggest. We have a commitment to international 

partners in the Space Station. You said something in your opening 

statement that you support the Space Station, but we have to make 

sure that putting people in space is for a mission worthy of the 

risk. 

And I agree with you, of course, that going to Mars should be the 

next vision. But I want to make sure that we also have the commitment to our international partners to finish the Space Station and 

30

that we look for the ways to enhance the science so that it is worthy of the efforts that we are making, both in the medical research, 

which we are now doing, and potentially with geophysical research, 

from what we might get on the moon and then maybe into the 

long-term future, Mars. 

And I just wanted to ask you if you are committed to finishing 

the Space Station and if you have other ideas about the kinds of 

science that we can do that would be worthy of the risk of manned 

space flight. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes, Senator. Let me assure you first that your priority to, as I just said in response to Senator Nelson’s question, 

your priority to reduce any gap in access to space by our Nation 

after the Shuttle retirement is also my priority. We are of like 

mind. It remains to find ways and means. But we are of like mind 

on that. 

With regard to the International Space Station, yes, the President is pledged, and I, as his nominee, am pledged, if confirmed, 

to bring the International Space Station to a level of completion 

consistent with our obligations to our international partners. The 

faith and credence of the United States in meeting its obligations 

means something to me. It means quite a lot to me. We have undergone a trauma in our space program, as you know all too well. 

We are still recovering from that and there has been damage to the 

program, and there have been delays to the program. But we are 

committed to meeting our obligations to our partners. 

With regard to the science that can be done on the Station, as 

I know that you are aware, it consists, of course, first and foremost, 

life science research in connection with the effect of zero gravity on 

the human body in preparation for longer voyages. It also serves, 

or can serve, as a test bed for engineering development hardware 

before that hardware is subjected to long journeys far from home. 

It can possibly serve, as you indicated, in observation or other type 

of scientific platform. 

You know, the utilization of it remains yet to be fully fleshed out. 

But certainly having built it, it would be my commitment to use 

it for whatever makes sense to use. 

Senator HUTCHISON. So you can foresee that there could be 

equipment testing, as perhaps we go back and forth to the moon, 

that could—I mean, to—I am sorry, to the moon that could also 

eventually help us in knowing what it would take to go to Mars? 

Dr. GRIFFIN. I have often thought that the most valuable application of any space station would be simply a place to check out hardware that is in nascent stages of development, not fully understood. 

It provides a lot more opportunity for interaction with that hardware than aerospace engineers usually get. Most of the time we design it, we build it, we launch it, and we hope we did it right. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

With my last minute I would like to just ask a question to Mr. 

Boardman. Senator Dorgan and I have just introduced legislation. 

And I was very pleased to work on this with him because of a situation that happened in San Antonio, Texas, last year where—and 

it just—it happens in other parts of the country as well. It just 

happened that we had a huge wreck and it was going through a 

major metropolitan area. And we know that hazardous materials 

31

carriage going through metropolitan areas is an issue that affects 

many communities. 

Our bill would require railroads to improve inspections of welded 

track, develop tank car safety standards, and ask, or actually direct, the FRA to do a relevant rulemaking. And I just wanted to 

ask you if you are familiar with this issue and if you are committed 

to better inspection capabilities by the railroads and better oversight from the FRA and also the issue of tank car integrity. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Senator, I am familiar with at least part of the 

issue. And I will, if confirmed, pay attention to the HAZMAT issue, 

not only in terms of the technical characteristics of the cars, but 

also in some of the balance of how we are going to notify and operate those cars. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And working with the communities involved. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senators, I have urged the staff to notify absent 

Senators, but we will meet in the President’s room right after the 

next vote or at 2:15 today, whichever occurs first, on the nomination. 

I now recognize Senator Pryor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My time is short here so, Mr. Griffin, I would like to focus some 

questions with you first. Something that has been in the news recently is the Hubble Spacecraft, or the Hubble Telescope. And I am 

hearing, I guess, conflicting reports, or maybe I do not understand 

exactly what is going on. I think that some are saying we should 

just pretty much abandon it and let it die, and others are saying 

no, we can send up some sort of robotic spacecraft and get it, you 

know, reworked for a longer life. 

Tell me the status of that and tell me the value of the Hubble 

Telescope, if you can. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Let me comment on the second issue first, the value 

of the Hubble. I guess the shortest way in which I could express 

it is that the Hubble almost by itself is the instrument which allowed us, as a race of people, but our scientists in particular, to understand that it is quite literally true that we know nothing about 

95 percent of the known universe. Seventy-five percent of it is dark 

energy, 20 percent of it is so-called dark matter, and the remaining 

5 percent is what we can see. 

That is an understanding so profound as to rival with Einstein’s 

development of the theories of relativity and so forth. So it has 

been an extraordinarily valuable instrument. 

Senator PRYOR. And is it your opinion that it would have value 

in the future? 

Dr. GRIFFIN. If it were working right, of course it would continue 

to have value in the future. Yes, sir, and the issue remains as to 

what we do. To answer now your first question second, sir——

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

32

Dr Griffin.—the ability to deal with it. A robotic mission has 

been studied. Actually, until I was nominated by the President to 

be his choice for Administrator, I was the independent chair of the 

Robotic Servicing Mission design review committee. As you know 

and as was in the news very recently, that committee, now without 

me as its head, that committee has concluded that the Robotic 

Servicing Mission is not feasible within reasonable amounts, for 

reasonable amounts of money, and within the time we have available before the Hubble wears out, if you will. 

So I would like to take the robotic mission off the plate. I believe 

that is a correct assessment and so I believe that the choice comes 

down to reinstating a Shuttle servicing mission or possibly a very 

simple robotic deorbiting mission. The decision not to execute the 

Shuttle, the planned Shuttle servicing mission, was made in the 

immediate aftermath of the loss of Columbia. When we return to 

flight, it will be with essentially a new vehicle which will have a 

new risk analysis associated with it and so on and so forth. 

At that time, I think we should reassess the earlier decision and 

in light of what we learn after we return to flight, we should revisit 

the earlier decision. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Did I answer responsively? I mean, I was rather 

long-winded and I am sorry. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. That is good. Now let me ask you about 

NASA as an agency. I know there has been some financial management issues there. In fact, as I understand it, NASA’s auditors 

have not been able to conduct an audit for three of the last 4 years. 

And there may not be a clean audit in FY05. Is that your understanding? 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir, that is my understanding. 

Senator PRYOR. And what is the cause of that? And why is that 

happening in this Agency? And understandably, Congress has a lot 

of concerns about that. And, you know, frankly, you need to get 

your fiscal house in order. But tell me the cause of that and what 

you plan on doing to fix it. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Sir, I in no way have the appropriate knowledge at 

this time to comment on the cause. So I will have to—and if confirmed, I absolutely look forward to getting back to you to explain 

what we have found when we know. But right now, I do not know. 

Senator PRYOR. I think that has got to be one of your top priorities, though. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. It is. It absolutely is. I have, as was pointed out in 

my introduction, I have been at NASA. I have been a contractor to 

NASA. When I was in the Defense Department, I have been a customer for NASA. Since I have been a contractor, I have been held 

to demanding accounting standards for how we spent our money, 

as should be the case. It is not acceptable for NASA to do less well 

in accounting for its expenditures to the Congress. 

I am given to understand that there is an excellent Chief Financial Officer in charge at NASA. I just met her this morning. I am 

also given to understand that it may well be true that she has not 

received all of the resources necessary to accomplish her job. I plan 

to meet with her literally on my first day and understand what she 

needs to accomplish her task and to see to it that she can do that. 

33

It is unacceptable that we cannot pass an impartial audit and account to you for how we have expended our funds. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. I agree with that. And I am glad you are 

going to make that such a high priority. 

And the last question I wanted to ask is not so much about space 

flight or even agency but science and education. And you have the 

EPSCoR program. Are you familiar with EPSCoR? 

Dr. GRIFFIN. I am not, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 

Research. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. I am not familiar with it, I am sorry to say. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Well, I tell you what, I will just write out 

a question for you for the record, and not to hold up the confirmation, but I would like your thoughts on that. 

Thank you. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. I would welcome the opportunity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Allen? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to focus my comments to you, Dr. Griffin. And it has 

to do with the NASA budget. I intend to support you. But let me 

tell you, every time you come before this Committee, I am going to 

voice concern about the Aeronautics Industry. I am a competitive 

person. I think everyone in this Committee, whether they are from 

Alaska or from Virginia or from Texas or from anywhere else, are 

concerned about the aeronautics funding because air travel affects 

us all. 

One of the great strengths in the 20th century, of America and 

its leadership, was in aeronautics. We have fallen behind. For the 

first time ever, going from 90 percent of the commercial aviation 

market in the 1940s, we for the first time have come in second last 

year, down to 45 percent of global sales. 

I have looked at the funding for the aeronautics aspect of NASA. 

In the previous administration, research and development was cut 

in half. This current administration and this proposed budget proposes another cut in half, which is forcing some of our research 

centers to lay off capable, uniquely skilled individuals, who are not 

readily found in the market. 

Moreover, there is a concern about young people in engineering, 

particularly aeronautical engineering. This certainly does not send 

a positive message, if we care to be a leader in aeronautics, which 

I think is important for our security and for prosperity in this 

country. 

When one looks at all the developments and the improvements 

in aviation over the years, many of those, whether it is civilian or 

for military aircraft, came from the R&D, the high-risk research 

that was done at our research centers, NASA research centers, 

around the country. 

Now I understand that you have yet to be confirmed as Administrator, but I would like for you to explain to me and to our Committee the rationale behind the dramatic cuts in the new vehicle 

systems program, which is conducting research on the feasibility of 

34

hypersonic flight. Hypersonic flight is that of the speed above Mach 

5. They are also researching the development of zero emissions aircraft. 

Could you share with me and our Committee the rationale for 

these further drastic cuts in aeronautics and, moreover, why the 

cuts in the new vehicle systems? 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Senator Allen, I cannot share that rationale with 

you, because I do not know it. If confirmed, I will take it as an action to study that, those issues, and to get back to you, to work 

with you and your staff in explaining our rationale. But as of 

today, I do not have it. 

I share your view as to the cruciality of aeronautics research. 

Like you, I am a competitive person and also find it more than 

somewhat worrisome that last year we were below 50 percent of 

the market share, having once had 90 percent. We also have a 

statement on the record in the European Union that the goal of 

Airbus is to dominate the world market in air transport. I think 

that the United States should be worried about that. And I am. 

But with respect to your question today, with what I know at 

this moment, I cannot answer. 

Senator ALLEN. Well, in the event that we are going to address 

the concerted plan, which they are effectuating in Europe to dominate by the year 2020, and they are investing a great deal, billions 

of dollars, in research and development, and producing quality aircraft, do you see cutting research and development for new vehicle 

systems in aeronautics as a way of addressing that competitive 

challenge that we are facing, which is important, again, for our 

military, for civilian aircraft and it actually is also good for our balance of trade. And most of our balance of trade is not very good 

these days. 

So do you see cutting research and development by half again, 

so it is about one-quarter of what it was 10 years ago, do you see 

that as a logical, rational way of handling this or addressing it? 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, sir, as I do not have to explain to you, I am 

the President’s nominee and I support the President’s program. 

However, the President understands that the determination of the 

budget in the final analysis is an iterative process. I look forward 

to working with you and your staff on those iterations to arrive at 

an approach which is acceptable to all parties. 

Senator ALLEN. Well, I look forward to working with you. Understand, in our private conversation we discussed this as well, how 

important I feel this is for the future of our country. I feel that we 

ought to be concerned that, for example, the most advanced fighter 

must be tested overseas in wind tunnels in Europe, because our 

own country has failed to invest in our own wind tunnels. 

And so it is my view that—I know there are a lot of priorities 

and we do need to be in the lead in space, but we also need to be 

paying attention to the very practical, beneficial aspects of research 

and development here in this country, working with the private 

sector, working with defense, in aeronautics. And I just cannot 

countenance seeing the atrophying of a very capable skilled work 

force plus the encouragement for the future with these, I think, 

penny-wise-and-pound-foolish proposals. 

35

And so as the legislative branch disposes of proposals—and I 

know that. And as a Governor, I appreciate agency heads who follow the executive. However, I am glad you understand the legislative process. And I hope to work with my colleagues to improve the 

aeronautics funding, particularly for the new vehicle system, which 

is important for the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, I will be happy to discuss with you 

sometime the availability of money for that research and the redundancy of the current research. 

Senator Inouye? 

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I will be submitting my questions. But I would like to ask Dr. Griffin to do his very best to keep 

Hubble alive. 

And to Mr. Boardman, as you may know or may not know, we 

in Hawaii have one narrow-gauge railroad. It is about two miles 

long. So we are not quite ready for Amtrak. But I will be supporting you. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. In other words, you do not 

have an excuse to go to Hawaii. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We will make one up. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. And I hope 

you will respond to the questions that we may submit to you. 

And Dr. Griffin, we look forward to contacting you later. 

Mr. Boardman, we will determine how quickly we can get your 

nomination out. We will have a hearing markup tomorrow—no, 

Thursday, Thursday. And we will do our best to have it ready for 

that time. 

I will now turn to the next panel. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

Dr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks to your family. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will take a 2-minute break. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would ask Ms. Nancy Nord and Mr. William 

Cobey to come to the table, please. 

[Pause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, I have been called to respond to an amendment by Senator Cochran, but I did want to say 

that I have known Nancy Nord for longer than I even want to say, 

at least 30 years. And she is the most qualified person for this position. I know she will do a wonderful job. 

And I hope that our Committee will expedite her approval, as 

well. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[Pause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Please close the doors. 

[Pause.] 

36

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Nancy Nord has been nominated to be Commissioner of Consumer Products Safety Commission. The Honorable William Cobey is nominated to be a member of the board of 

directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. Let 

me ask you if you have family with you today that you wish to introduce for the record, either of you? 

Mr. COBEY. No, sir. 

Ms. NORD. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Inouye and I are pleased to be able to 

consider the nomination. Do you have any opening statement to 

make on these nominees? 

Senator INOUYE. Fine candidates. 

The CHAIRMAN. And my opening statement, which I placed in the 

record, I identified your backgrounds, each of you. And we understand that Senator Thune and Senator Johnson support Ms. Nord’s 

nomination. Senator Dole and Senator Burr support Mr. Cobey. 

And their statements will be placed in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are pleased to consider your nomination. 

Ms. Nord, do you have a statement that you would like to make? 

STATEMENT OF NANCY A. NORD, NOMINEE TO BE 

COMMISSIONER, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 

Ms. NORD. Yes, sir. Although I do not have family with me this 

morning, I would like to acknowledge Commissioner Thomas 

Moore, who will be my colleague on the CPSC, if confirmed. Commissioner Moore is well known to this Committee. And I wanted 

to acknowledge his presence. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We are pleased to have you here, 

Commissioner. 

Ms. NORD. Thank you. The biographical information I submitted 

to the Committee for the record outlines my personal and professional background. This morning I wanted to just briefly tell you 

why I would like to be on the Consumer Product Safety Commission and give you a sense of the things I would like to accomplish, 

if confirmed. 

I am eager to be a CPSC Commissioner for several reasons. First 

of all, I strongly believe in the mission of the agency. American 

consumers have every right to expect that the products that they 

purchase will be safe and will not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to themselves or their families. 

Second, I am pleased to have been chosen for this position, because I have a long interest in the activities of the agency. As a 

young lawyer right out of law school, one of the very first issues 

I worked on was the legislation creating the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission. Later, as a Hill staffer, I worked on consumer 

protection matters, including oversight and authorization legislation for the agency. 

In the 30 years since it was established, the agency has built up 

an impressive record of accomplishments. And I am eager to do 

what I can to push forward the mission of the agency. 

With respect to priorities, the Commission has a special responsibility to vulnerable population groups such as the elderly and especially children. While the Commission has made significant strides 

with respect to the safety of toys and other children’s products, 

37

there is always more to be done. This is an area of special concern 

to me and if confirmed, is an area where I will give strong emphasis. 

On a related matter, it is critical that once a product —unsafe 

product—has been recalled, that we assure ourselves that the product is really out of consumers’ hands. We should continue to explore a variety of ways to track and measure product recall effectiveness, including the use of new technologies. 

While I believe that American manufacturers generally have an 

excellent record in producing safe products, I also recognize that 

many products on our store shelves are manufactured overseas. 

Under the leadership of Chairman Stratton, the Commission has 

begun work with safety officials in other countries to harmonize 

safety regulations and to assure that products manufactured outside the U.S. meet our high standards. I look forward to supporting 

this important work that the Commission has begun. 

Before I close, I want to mention to you the importance that I 

place on open communication. If confirmed, I am committed to establishing an open communication process to assure that I have the 

benefit of rigorous debate and all points of view before reaching a 

decision. Consumer groups, business entities, the standard-setting 

bodies can be assured that I strongly believe in an open-door policy 

and will be proactively looking for their input on issues before the 

Commission. 

Serving as a CPSC Commissioner is a high honor and a tremendous responsibility. If confirmed, I commit that I will undertake 

this responsibility with integrity, enthusiasm, and full dedication. 

Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Nord. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms. 

Nord follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY A. NORD, NOMINEE TO BE COMMISSIONER, 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear before 

you today as the President’s nominee to be a Member of the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC’’). I welcome the opportunity to talk with you about the 

Commission and to answer any questions you may have. 

To give you an overview of my background, I was born and raised in Sioux Falls, 

South Dakota, where most of my family still lives. I graduated from the University 

of Nebraska and then attended George Washington University Law School at night, 

while working during the day as a Senate staffer. Twenty-one years ago, I married 

James S. Halpern, a Judge on the United States Tax Court. We have an 18 year 

old daughter, who is a freshman in college. 

My professional background includes service as counsel to the House Commerce 

Committee (where I handled consumer protection issues, including those relating to 

the CPSC), general counsel to the President’s Council Of Environmental Quality, 

private law practice, starting and leading a professional association, and managing 

the Federal Government relations function of a large consumer products company. 

I have long had an interest in the activities of the CPSC. One of the first issues 

I worked on as a young lawyer, thirty years ago, was the original legislation establishing the Commission. As a hill staffer, I worked on authorizing legislation and 

oversight of the agency. I believe that the mission of the agency is of vital importance to the lives of every person in this country and I am committed to working 

aggressively to assure that the Commission carries out its statutory mission. 

From my experience in both the public and private sectors, I firmly believe it is 

critical that the agency involve in its deliberations all stakeholders, including private industry, consumer groups, state public health and law enforcement officials, 

and other federal agencies. If confirmed, I am committed to establishing an open 

38

communications process to assure that I have the benefit of vigorous debate and all 

points of view before reaching a decision on an issue. I also understand that Congress, and especially this Committee, is vitally interested in the Commission’s activities. If confirmed, I will assure that there continues to be open and full communication with you and your staff, and that the agency is fully responsive to any 

questions or issues you may have. 

The activities of the agency break down into three main areas, (1) identifying 

products that present unreasonable risks and developing uniform safety standards 

to protect against those risks, (2) educating consumers about the relative safety of 

consumer products and about compliance actions taken by the Commission, and (3) 

a law enforcement function, which assures compliance with the statute. I would like 

to outline my priorities with respect to each of these activities. 

With respect to the standards setting process, the Consumer Product Safety Act 

is unique in its direction to the Commission to work with interested parties to develop voluntary safety standards if such standards would be adequate to address a 

particular risk. The voluntary standards mechanism that Congress built into the 

Act assures that the standards-setting process is a collaborative one involving all 

stakeholders. It gives incentive to manufacturers to design for safety. The commission should encourage product manufacturers, working cooperatively with consumer 

and standard setting groups in appropriate situations, to design safety into products 

so that regulatory action by the commission is a rare occurrence. 

With respect to consumer education and outreach, I believe that much needs to 

be done to alert consumers about potential safety issues. In addition, we need to 

continue developing more imaginative ways to get unsafe products out of the hands 

of consumers. However, this is not something the agency can do alone. it is vital 

that the agency work closely with the states’ attorneys general, state and local public health officials, educators, and community organizations, especially those serving 

consumers who are less fortunate economically and consumers who do not speak 

English as their first language, to assure that those closest to the people have information about safety issues and product risks. 

With respect to the agency’s law enforcement function, I am committed to vigorously enforcing the law: Those who do not comply with the statute should be punished. As our world gets smaller and manufacturing becomes global in scale, it is 

important that we assure consumers that consumer products coming into this country are safe and meet U.S. safety standards. Counterfeit products pose a special 

problem. Not only do counterfeit products impose unfair competitive burdens on 

American manufacturers, but they also can pose real safety hazards for American 

consumers. Finally, the Commission has a special obligation to protect vulnerable population 

groups, especially the elderly and the young. You have my full assurance that I will 

work tirelessly to assure that consumer products posing unreasonable risks to children and the elderly are dealt with quickly and efficiently. 

Serving as a CPSC Commissioner is a serious responsibility and a tremendous opportunity to work with a talented and dedicated staff. If confirmed, I commit to you 

that I will undertake the job of Commissioner with enthusiasm and integrity. 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Nancy Ann Nord. 

2. Position to which nominated: Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

3. Date of Nomination: February 28, 2005. 

4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses): information not 

released to the public. 

5. Date and Place of Birth: September 14, 1946; Sioux Falls, SD. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage). 

James S. Halpern, Judge, United States Tax Court, Washington, DC (spouse); 

Hilary Ann Halpern, 18 (daughter). 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended. 

JD—George Washington University National College of Law, 1971; BA—University of Nebraska, 1968. 

8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate 

to the position for which you are nominated.

Director of Federal Government Relations, Eastman Kodak Company; 

Of Counsel, Verner, Liipfert, Bernhardt, McPherson and Hand Law Firm; 

39

Counsel, Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly; 

Executive Director, American Corporate Counsel Association; 

General Counsel, Counsel on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the 

President; 

Counsel, Commerce Committee, U.S. House of Representatives; 

Director of Consumer Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; 

Attorney-Advisor, Federal Communications Commission.

9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time service or positions 

with federal, state, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the 

last five years: Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner, Washington, DC. 

10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational or other institution within the last five 

years: Better Business Bureau Online, Board Member. 

11. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or handicap.

District of Columbia Republican Committee, 1995–present, general counsel, 

treasurer, executive committee member;

Republican National Lawyers Association, 1985–present, board of governors, executive director, president;

American Corporate Counsel Association, 1999–2003;

District of Columbia Bar Association (retired member);

Big Sisters of Metropolitan Washington, 1996, Board of Directors;

Temple Micah Jewish Congregation, 2001–present;

Bethesda Jewish Congregation, 1995–2001.

To my knowledge, none of these organizations restricts its membership on the 

basis listed in the question.

12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? If so, indicate whether any 

campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are personally 

liable for that debt. 

In 2002 and in 2004, I was a candidate for and was elected to be an Advisory 

Neighborhood Commissioner in Washington, DC. No debt was incurred. 

13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, 

political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past 10 years.

District of Columbia Republican Committee, 2005, $500; 

DC Republican Committee, 2004, $550; 

DC Republican Committee, 2002, $500; 

DC Republican Committee, 2000, $500; 

Bush-Cheney 2004 (Primary) Inc, 2003, $2000; 

Bush for President, 1999, $1000; 

Elizabeth Dole for President Exploratory Committee, 1999, $1000; 

KPAC, 2001, $500. 

In addition, from 1997 through 2003, I was a regular contributor to the Eastman Kodak Employees Political Action Committee in varying annual amounts 

between $500 and $800.

14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements: N/A 

15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have given on topics relevant 

to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of these 

publications unless otherwise instructed.

‘‘Sentencing Guidelines Up the Ante for Corporate Compliance Programs’’, 

ACCA Docket, Fall, 1991;

‘‘The New Lobbying Disclosure Act: What You Need to Know to Comply’’, ACCA 

Docket, Summer, 1996.

40

16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and specify the subject matter of 

each testimony: N/A 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. 

Under the terms of my deferred compensation agreement with Eastman Kodak 

Company, I will receive deferred compensation payments in 2005 and 2006. In addition, I hold a small number of Eastman Kodak stock options. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? No. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated: See No. 1 above. 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last 5 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of 

interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

During the past 5 years, I was an employee of the Eastman Kodak Company, 

which manufactures consumer products regulated by the Commission. 

5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy. 

During the past 5 years, I served as Director of Federal Government Relations 

for the Eastman Kodak Company. In that capacity, I oversaw all the company’s legislative activities and was registered as a lobbyist for the company. 

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

I have signed an Ethics Agreement under which I agree to recuse myself from any 

matter that will effect my personal financial interests or that of my family. In addition, I have agreed to recuse myself from any matter that may effect the financial 

interests of Eastman Kodak Co. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics by, or been the 

subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association, 

disciplinary committee, or other professional group? No. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal, 

State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, 

please explain.

I was a defendant in civil litigation involving the construction of a personal residence for my family. The case was settled before trial, in October, 2003.

In 2004, I participated with the other former Chairs and General Counsels of 

the Counsel on Environmental Quality in an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme 

Court in Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere ) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? No. 

5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination:

N/A. 

6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any other basis? No. 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

41

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree if requested to appear before this 

Committee you will come without a subpoena? 

Ms. NORD. Absolutely, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. Cobey, we are pleased to have your 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM W. COBEY, JR., NOMINEE TO 

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON 

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY 

Mr. COBEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye. I was 

certainly honored to have my home state Senators, outstanding 

leaders, Senators Dole and Burr, introduce me. And I have submitted a statement for the record. I appreciate this hearing, consideration of my nomination by the President. And I would be glad to 

answer any questions you might have for me at this time. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr. 

Cobey follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM W. COBEY, JR., NOMINEE TO THE BOARD

OF DIRECTORS, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am Bill Cobey, the President’s nominee to the Metropolitan Washington Airports 

Authority. I would succeed the Honorable John Paul Hammerschmidt, who has been 

closely involved with Washington’s two airports since the Congress agreed to turn 

them over to a public regional authority in 1986. 

As you can see from the Committee’s record, my principal qualifications for this 

appointment are found in my years of governmental service. I was introduced to airport politics and policies when I had responsibility for the airports in North Carolina as Deputy Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and 

later as Town Manager of Morrisville, North Carolina which is located immediately 

adjacent to the Raleigh-Durham Airport. 

I have long been involved with the Republican Party in North Carolina, and I am 

proud to have actively supported the election of the two outstanding Senators who 

introduced me this morning. I had the honor of representing the good people of the 

fourth district of North Carolina as a Member of the House of Representatives for 

one term in the mid 1980s when the Airports Authority was established under the 

visionary leadership of then Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole. 

The Airports Authority customarily invites nominees to attend its meetings, and 

I have already attended a Board meeting and five committee meetings. The Board 

is very active and its members are well informed. I very much look forward to working with my colleagues there. 

As you may know, the Metropolitan Washington Airports is a public agency created by interstate compact between the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District 

of Columbia solely to operate Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and 

Washington Dulles International Airport under lease from the United States. It is 

governed by a Board of 13 Members. Five are appointed by the Governor of Virginia, 

three by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, two by the Governor of Maryland 

and three by the President. 

I am told that the Presidential members are among the most active and have the 

best attendance records. They are also mindful of the statutory direction, in the federal Metropolitan Washington Airports Act, to ‘‘ensure adequate consideration is 

given to the national interest.’’ I can assure the Committee that this record will continue if I am confirmed. 

I appreciate your consideration of my nomination. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

42

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): William W. (Bill) Cobey 

Jr. 

2. Position to which nominated: Member (‘‘Director’’), Metropolitan Washington 

Airports Authority. 

3. Date of Nomination: February 28, 2005. 

4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses): information not 

released to the public. 

5. Date and Place of Birth: May 13, 1939, Washington, DC. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage). 

Nancy Lee Cobey, Fitness Instructor, Self Employed, spouse; Catherine Cobey 

Culton, 39, daughter; William W. Cobey IV, 32, son. 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended. 

Emory University, BA, Chemistry, 1962; University of Pennsylvania, MBA, Marketing, 1964; University of Pittsburgh, M Ed, Health and Physical Education, 1968. 

8. List all management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate 

to the position for which you are nominated. 

Deputy Secretary, North Carolina Department of Transportation—State Aviation 

Program under this position. In a broader sense, my experiences as a Member of 

the U.S. House of Representatives, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of 

Environment, Health and Natural Resources; Director of Athletics at the University 

of North Carolina; and Town Manager of Morrisville, North Carolina are also relevant. 

9. List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time service or positions 

with federal, state, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the 

last five years. 

Served on the transition team for new State Auditor of North Carolina earlier this 

year. 

10. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational or other institution within the last five 

years. 

Chairman of the Board, Trinity School of Durham and Chapel Hill; Member of 

the Board of the Jesse Helms Center; Senior Consultant, Capitol Link; President, 

Cobey, Inc. 

11. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or handicap. 

The Chapel Hill Bible Church, 1978 to the present, deacon and elder; The North 

Carolina Republican Party, Executive Committee since 1985, Chairman 1999–2003; 

Republican National Committee 1999–2003; National Rifle Association, 2003–2005; 

current member, Educational Foundation at the University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill, have been a member off and on since 1976. 

12. Have you ever been a candidate for public office? If so, indicate whether any 

campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are personally 

liable for that debt: Yes. 

My last campaign, which was for Governor of North Carolina, owes me $90,000. 

There are no other debts from this campaign or other campaigns. 

13. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, 

political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past 10 years. 

Cobey for Governor, $4,000, 2003; North Carolina Republican Executive Committee, $1,000, 1999; Richard Burr for U.S. Senate, $500, 2003; Jo Bonner for Congress, $1,000, 2002. 

14. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements. 

Order of the Gimgoul and Bell Tower Society at UNC at Chapel Hill; Order of 

the Long Leaf Pine, State of North Carolina; Presidential Citation of the North 

Carolina Association of Local Health Directors; Distinguished Service Award, Chapel Hill-Carrboro Jaycees. 

43

15. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others, and any speeches that you have given on topics relevant 

to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of these 

publications unless otherwise instructed: None. 

16. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a non-governmental capacity and specify the subject matter of 

each testimony: None. 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. 

Cobey, Inc. is paid by Capitol Link for my consulting services. Capitol Link is a 

Washington-based Federal Government relations firm headed by Mick Staton, a 

former Member of Congress, specializing in municipal and county government matters. I am paid a percentage of the fees paid by clients in North Carolina to Capitol 

Link. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? If so, please explain: Yes, see No. 1. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. 

My Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report identifies several 

financial interests in firms that have contracts with the Metropolitan Washington 

Airports Authority. They are: Dell Computer Corp., Motorola Inc., Cisco Systems, 

Inc., Oracle Corp. and Wachovia Corp. 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last 5 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of 

interest in the position to which you have been nominated: None. 

5. Describe any activity during the past 5 years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy. 

Lobbied Congress and federal agencies for non-profit organization’s investments 

in contaminated sites cleanup to be specifically exempted from unrelated business 

income. Contacted state legislators to oppose proposed state lottery for North Carolina and to influence the redistricting of state senate and house seats. As North 

Carolina Republican Chairman and Candidate for Governor of North Carolina, I 

spoke out on numerous issues. 

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

I will do my best to avoid any conflicts of interest. If I have one, consistent with 

the Airports Authority Code of Ethical Responsibilities for Members of the Board of 

Directors, I will disclose my conflict to the Board and not speak to the issue either 

privately or publicly and of course, not vote. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics by, or been the 

subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association, 

disciplinary committee, or other professional group? No. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any federal, 

state, or other law enforcement authority of any federal, state, county, or municipal 

entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? No. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? No. 

5. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination: 

None. 

6. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or any other basis? No. 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes, to the best of my shared authority. 

44

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes, to the best of my shared authority. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you also agree that you will come before this 

Committee if requested, without a subpoena? 

Mr. COBEY. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We appreciate that each of you 

agreed to meet and discuss your nominations before this hearing. 

The questions that we had were satisfied, I believe. 

Senator Inouye. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just two short 

questions. 

What are your views, Mr. Cobey, on adding a few more long-distance flights from Reagan? 

Mr. COBEY. Certainly I am open to that, Senator. I understand 

that that has to be—at least my understanding is it has to be done 

in statute at this point in time. But I am certainly open to more 

flights beyond the perimeter. 

Senator INOUYE. And to Ms. Nord—thank you very much, 

Mr. Cobey. 

Mr. COBEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. Currently the agency has a cap on the fines, 

$7,000 per product with a ceiling of 1.65 million. 

Ms. NORD. Yes, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. We have been receiving letters and e-mail from 

other interested parties citing, for example, that on June 2003 

Endovascular Technologies was fined over $92 million in civil and 

criminal penalties by FDA. Consumer groups would like to see the 

caps removed entirely. They argue that low caps are no deterrent. 

And large corporations can factor certain civil penalties into their 

cost of doing business. 

What are your thoughts on raising the cap or eliminating the 

cap? 

Ms. NORD. I am aware, Senator, that the agency recently has imposed fines of record proportion for the CPSC. And they have been 

well publicized in the newspapers. I think you raise an interesting 

question. I do not have a strong view that the caps are either appropriate or inappropriate, sir. I would like to take a look at that 

and come back to you and your staff. I am certainly very open to 

considering that, if that would be a more effective deterrent. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I favor all of the nominees. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Ms. Nord, I have been reminded that the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission keeps track of snow machine and four-wheeler 

accidents——

Ms. NORD. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN.—by surveying hospitals. 

Ms. NORD. Yes, sir. 

45

The CHAIRMAN. Most of these machines are used in rural areas, 

particularly in my state. And of the 230 rural villages, most of 

them do not have hospitals. They have very small clinics staffed by 

community health aides. Would you ask the Commission to consider expanding the accident survey program to cover these rural 

areas by contacting the entities that these people go to when injured? Hospitals are in major cities in my state. Clinics are in hundreds of places. And I do not think you are getting really a good 

sampling, a good survey, of accidents under the current procedure. 

I would urge you to ask the Commission to expand the concept, so 

that you ask the clinics for information, as well as hospitals. Are 

you willing to do that? 

Ms. NORD. Sir, I strongly believe that the more information you 

have about products and accidents, the better off you are going to 

understand the risks. So absolutely I would be happy to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much. Senator Inouye and I 

both want to indicate for the record we intend to recommend that 

the Committee report favorably the nominations before the Committee now. And we look forward to working with you in your new 

capacity, as soon as you are confirmed. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORD. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. COBEY. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(47)

APPENDIX

APRIL 4, 2005

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, 

Ranking Minority Member, 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Stevens and Inouye:

This letter is to support the nomination of Nancy A. Nord to be a Commissioner 

of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I request that it be made part of the 

Committee’s hearing record. 

Nancy was born and raised in South Dakota and I have known her and her family 

for many years. I believe that she would bring thoughtful and evenhanded leadership to the Commission. She has both management experience and substantive expertise on issues before the CPSC and would make a valuable contribution to the 

Commission. 

Nancy has my full support for this position. I hope that the Committee will move 

quickly to favorably report out this nomination. 

TIM JOHNSON, 

U.S. Senator. 

NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Raleigh, NC, April 7, 2005

Hon. Ted Stevens, 

Chairman, 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye 

Co-Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators:

The purpose of this letter is to indicate our enthusiastic endorsement of Commissioner Joseph H. Boardman of New York for the position of Administrator of the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

Since 1997, it has been our privilege to work with Commissioner Boardman as 

a State Department of Transportation colleague on a wide range of transportation 

matters. The Commissioner has demonstrated extraordinary intelligence, leadership 

and dedication to public service principles through his chairmanship of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Standing Committee on Rail Transportation (SCORT). 

As Chairman of SCORT Commissioner Boardman coordinated rail policy development by the several states states. These policies have included federal legislation, 

intercity passenger rail and Amtrak, development of Class I, II and III railroads, 

freight rail and labor issues, safety, intermodalism, security and other matters. His 

grasp of these issues is profound yet he also has the interpersonal skills to listen 

to the views of others in order to achieve consensus. 

I have personally observed the strengths of character and experience in Commissioner Boardman, and am confident that he will serve the nation well as Administrator of the FRA. Therefore I ask for your vote in consent of this confirmation. 

Sincerely, 

48

DAVID D. KING, 

Deputy Secretary for Transit. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN TO

DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN

Question 1. Most recently, there have been many claims by government and industry scientists that the Administrations is ignoring the facts concerning climate 

change science and has been filtering some of the data that makes it into final reports. What are your thoughts on the state of climate change science? 

Answer. I think that the President’s Climate Change Research Initiative is the 

right approach—there are questions that we can answer in a relatively short 

amount of time that can directly inform the policy debate. My understanding is that, 

through the agencies participating in the Climate Change Science Program, we are 

developing a suite of assessments to update our state of knowledge on some of those 

key climate questions. These assessments are supported by NASA observations and 

research, a responsibility I take very seriously.

Question 1a. How do you plan to deal with such accusations and ensure that the 

research results are accurately represented in final reports? 

Answer. NASA’s role is to produce the best science possible to inform policy—not 

to make policy. As Administrator, I will work to ensure that only the highest quality 

science is accomplished, and that all research results which have been technically 

reviewed and found to be sound, are made available. The scientific process mandates that data and analyses be disseminated and that technical review and challenges be conducted. This is the way science advances. NASA will not filter research 

for political expediency.

Question 2. NASA is planning to return the Shuttle to flight next month. The 

Committee last year passed a NASA authorization bill that required NASA to certify to the Congress that the safety recommendations, identified as ‘‘Return-toFlight’’ by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, have been satisfied before returning to flight. Can you support such an action? 

Answer. It does not appear to be technically possible to satisfy the full scope of 

the CAIB recommendations for return to flight. For example, the CAIB recommended NASA develop a comprehensive inspection and repair capability to cover 

the widest possible range of damage scenarios, but we still do not know how to repair a hole in a wing such as that which is believed to have been responsible for 

the loss of Columbia. Thus, my first efforts as I assume the leadership of NASA will 

be to understand fully what can be, and has been, done to assure that the Shuttle 

will fly, for the remainder of its service, as safely as the technical state of the art 

permits. If I find the Shuttle to be unsafe, I will not give the go-ahead for it to fly 

until all necessary corrective actions have been taken. These are the actions that 

I can and will support.

Question 3. In a recent article concerning the Space Shuttle’s return-to-flight, 

Commander Eileen Collins and other crew members indicated that they would fly 

only if the Stafford-Covey Group and the agency’s leadership agreed that Columbia 

Accident Investigation Board’s ‘‘Return-to-Flight’’ recommendations have been met. 

The Stafford-Covey Group recently cancelled a meeting to discuss NASA’s work on 

these recommendations because of a lack of information from NASA. Does this situation cause concern for you? 

Answer. This situation will be of concern to me if it has been accurately reported 

by the media, a matter into which I will probe at my first opportunity. If NASA 

is withholding information necessary for analysis by the Stafford-Covey group, I will 

deal swiftly and surely with that situation. If, however, the information is unavailable or simply not yet available, this would be a matter leading to a different outcome. Summarizing, I will deal with the entire return-to-flight issue as immediately 

and thoroughly as possible after confirmation.

Question 4. According to a recent General Accountability Office report, the Space 

Shuttle program has made limited progress toward developing a detailed long-term 

strategy for sustaining its workforce through the Space Shuttle’s retirement. What 

are your plans for addressing workforce issues while also considering safety and the 

development of a replacement vehicle for the Shuttle system? 

Answer. I do not yet have such plans. After confirmation, I will develop a full understanding of the existing situation, and develop a strategy for the required workforce transition. I will share this strategy with the Congress as it becomes available.

Question 5. You previously served as President and Chief Operating Officer of InQ-Tel, a CIA supported organization that invests in private companies to ensure 

49

greater availability of intelligence-related technologies for the government. Do you 

think this approach or model is useful in other parts of the government? 

Answer. Though I can take no credit for the invention of the In-Q-Tel model, I 

believe it to be a thoroughly excellent approach for achieving ‘‘spin in’’ of the latest 

and best results of the high-tech community into government agencies, including 

NASA. I plan to support the furtherance of this model at NASA.

Question 6. Will NASA perform an astronaut servicing mission to the Hubble 

Space Telescope, as recommended by the recent National Academies report on the 

‘‘Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope’’ ? 

Answer. I cannot say whether NASA will support such a mission without further 

review, after we have completed our initial return-to-flight mission, STS–114. Immediately after this is accomplished, I will commission a thorough, impartial review 

of the operational and financial factors involved in making such a decision, will 

bring it to a speedy conclusion, and will fully share the results of this review, my 

decision, and the rationale for this decision, with the Congress.

Question 7. How will cost overruns in the Shuttle program and the development 

of the Crew Exploration Vehicle be kept in check? Do you foresee robotic missions 

and research programs in the Science Mission Directorate shouldering the burden 

for overruns in the manned program, as has happened in recent months? 

Answer. I believe that NASA has the ability to improve its execution of the basic 

‘‘blocking and tackling’’ of program management. I will make this a major effort 

after confirmation; there is no reason why NASA should not be the leader in the 

cost-effective execution of government aerospace programs. I will endeavor to avoid 

having scientific or aeronautical research programs ‘‘shoulder the burden’’ for overruns in the manned spaceflight program.

Question 8. What do you see as the role of science in NASA’s Vision for Space 

Exploration? 

Answer. Science is one of the fundamental goals of the Vision for Space Exploration. Opportunities to perform new and interesting scientific investigations, in 

new ways and at new destinations, will be an integral part of the Vision for Space 

Exploration. I am committed to the preservation of a robust science program at 

NASA. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAVID VITTER TO

DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN

Question 1. With the ongoing war on terror and budget, CAN the country afford 

a new launch system to meet the Exploration vision in the near future? 

Answer. Yes, the country can afford a new launch system if one is needed to support the Vision for Exploration. It is likely that any new launch system would be 

based on existing components, which would probably cost less than the development 

of an entirely new vehicle. The President is not seeking major increases in NASA 

funding; rather, the Vision sets a new direction for the use of funds presently allocated for NASA’s human spaceflight program.

Question 2. What transition or gap roles do you see for the Michoud Assembly Facility? As the new NASA Administrator how will you ensure there will be sustained 

funding for Michoud between the Shuttle retirement and Exploration start up? 

Answer. It is likely that NASA will need a heavy-lift vehicle to support the vision 

for space exploration. An analysis of future space launch requirements is called for 

in the National Space Transportation Policy. The policy further calls for NASA and 

the DoD to work together to develop a roadmap to meet these requirements and 

until that roadmap is complete, it is not clear exactly what type of launch vehicles 

will be used to support exploration. However, NASA cannot implement the development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle without the skills, tooling, and handling equipment necessary for large system components. Critical facilities and skills necessary 

for these capabilities exist at Michoud. Such facilities and skills at Michoud and 

elsewhere in the program will be identified and transition plans to preserve them 

will be developed.

Question 3. Tell us your thoughts on HLLV and SDV. What role will Michoud 

play? 

Answer. Any heavy-lift launch system for the Vision for Exploration will, if it is 

to be efficient and cost effective, involve large components. The largest system component available in the world today and which is applicable to the heavy-lift requirements of Exploration is the Shuttle External Tank. In one form or another, I 

would expect the fabrication and handling facilities and the skills resident at 

Michoud to be essential to the Exploration vision.

50

Question 4. How will NASA transition the human capital on STS/ISS to Space Exploration projects? 

Answer. My intention is to define the architectural elements and program plans 

for the Vision for Exploration on a timetable that allows us to transition the human 

capital with the requisite skill sets from the Shuttle/ISS programs as these programs wind down.

Question 5. I have been watching the progress of NASA over the past year in moving to establish a centralized Shared Service Center for administrative processing 

for the Agency. My understanding is that final selection of a site for the NSSC is 

imminent. Are you prepared to move ahead promptly with this cost-savings/one 

NASA initiative? How will you ensure that your final selection of a site for the 

NSSC provides the most savings of FTE and dollars for the Agency? 

Answer. It is my understanding that an impartial source selection board has studied this issue and is prepared to announce its final selection shortly. After a review 

of the concept and its implications, I will commit to implementing this cost-saving 

initiative. I will review the selection results before any announcement is made, and 

will ensure that the most globally beneficial solution has been chosen.

Question 6. Establishing and staffing a new center to execute the NSSC appears 

contrary to the much publicized 2006 targeted reductions at some of the centers, are 

you prepared to support this transformation? (Distinction between Administrative 

jobs (NSSC) vs. aeronautical/exploration/engineering type jobs.) 

Answer. I will review the plans for this transformation to ensure that it truly delivers the expected cost-saving benefits and, if so, will support it. Reductions in administrative positions at individual Centers will be tolerable if they help NASA 

achieve greater overall efficiency. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN

Question 1. There is a possibility that Stafford-Covey may decide that one or more 

of the Return to Flight Recommendations have not been completed to their satisfaction. What action will you take if this scenario occurs? 

Answer. In such a case, I will examine the issue to determine whether the NASA 

shuttle program managers agree, or differ, with the Stafford-Covey assessment. If 

they do differ, I will determine whether it is believed that there is any possibility 

of meeting the intent of the recommendation(s) within the limits of existing technology and the available financial means. If the problem cannot be solved, or cannot 

be solved within a budget and timeframe which is useful to the continued support 

of the ISS, it will be necessary to make a determination as to whether or not to 

accept the risk of flying with the known deficiency, relative to the CAIB recommendations. This will be done in a full and open manner, with all stakeholders 

involved.

Question 2. What qualities will you look for in potential Senior Level Managers 

at NASA? 

Answer. Potential senior managers at NASA must have unimpeachable integrity, 

high intelligence, appropriate experience with operational space programs, prior 

senior management experience, excellent ‘‘people skills,’’ high energy, total commitment, and a proven ability to ‘‘get things done’’ in the real world.

Question 3. Can you provide assurances that NASA will do what it can, as a matter of priority, to assure that crew survivability in a wide range of scenarios is considered, and implemented to the extent feasible, during the design and development 

of the next generation NASA Human Space Vehicle? 

Answer. No issue is more important to me than to assure that the fullest possible 

range of crew survivability options is considered in the next generation of manned 

space vehicle design.

Question 4. NASA is hoping to embark on an ambitious journey into Space using 

a Crew Exploration Vehicle. America is well aware of NASA’s history of cost overruns. So, it is especially crucial, that NASA make marked improvements over previous programs in the area of cost estimation and life cycle costing. Do you have 

some ideas on how NASA can improve in this area? 

Answer. It is my opinion that the discrepancy between predictions and achievements in regard to the cost estimation of aerospace programs generally, whether executed on behalf of DoD or NASA, is more a matter of improper program execution 

than it is a matter of incorrect estimation. We have only to consider the commercial 

communications satellite sector to realize that it is quite possible, when profits are 

at stake, for aerospace companies to produce complex yet reliable spacecraft on time 

51

and on budget. The establishment of greater discipline in program management 

within government-sponsored space programs will be the more fruitful path for us 

to pursue. Improved cost estimating techniques are certainly desirable, but more accurate estimates of unacceptable results is hardly the result we need.

Question 5. Do you have any comments about the importance of lessons learned 

for NASA’s future? 

Answer. I prefer to think of these as ‘‘lessons applied’’ rather than ‘‘lessons 

learned,’’ as only the application of a ‘‘lesson learned’’ will really yield a different 

outcome. Such lessons are the only means by which we add to the accumulated body 

of knowledge, both art and science, that is required for the United States to be the 

preeminent spacefaring nation. Nothing is more important for NASA’s future than 

effectively incorporating such knowledge.

Question 6. Are you familiar with the Plasma Rocket? Once you have been confirmed, will you look into it as an option for the next generation human rated spacecraft, and for other applications? 

Answer. I am familiar with the plasma rocket in general terms, and consider it 

to be an excellent possible option for use in helping to implement the Vision for Exploration. It is likely, however, that the most effective use of the plasma rocket in 

the future will be in the shipment of cargo, rather than on crewed vehicles.

Question 7. The same logic applies that NASA is using for Space Shuttle missions—if the ‘‘Crew Exploration Vehicle’’ has a problem, the ability to dock with the 

space station could be a life saver. What will you do to assure that the next generation human rated spacecraft can dock with the Space Station? 

Answer. The primary purpose of the CEV is to support exploration, an objective 

I fully support. The recent Request for Proposal (RFP) released by NASA does not 

require the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to go to the International Space Station 

(ISS). Rather it is a capability that the contractors are asked to assess. The final 

requirements for the CEV are planned to be established next year during the Systems Requirements Review and will be informed by the analyses and trades made 

by the contractor teams. I plan to work with the Exploration Directorate to understand the rationale for this capability being optional and see whether this ‘‘option’’ 

should be made a ‘‘requirement.’’

Question 8. Would you like to comment on orbital debris and its danger to human 

spaceflight? 

Answer. This is a topic with which I have had to become conversant with in recent years, and which is treated in some detail in my textbook, Space Vehicle Design. Briefly, we are now aware that space debris, even that consisting of very small 

particles (e.g., 1 millimeter in size) can be very damaging, even fatal, to space vehicles of any kind, manned or unmanned. The generation of orbital debris must be 

strictly controlled. Numerous internationally accepted guidelines for space operations to minimize debris generation exist, and I believe these guidelines should be 

followed by the United States and all spacefaring nations. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAVID VITTER TO

JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN

Question 1. As you know, Louisiana has experienced four train car collisions earlier this year. How has the Federal Railroad Administration responded to these collisions? 

Answer. I am aware of your unfortunate experience. I understand that the FRA 

is working with the State of Louisiana to develop a State Action Plan focusing on 

crossing safety. If confirmed, I will make every effort to foster cooperation between 

the FRA and the State to ensure the safety of Louisiana’s citizens.

Question 2. Louisiana on average per year has received $3.2 million from the Federal STP Railroad Hazardous Elimination Fund since 1987. Each year the Louisiana 

Department of Transportation and Development spends an additional $7 million on 

railroad safety. Why has the federal portion stayed the same for 18 years? 

Answer. I do not currently know the answer. If confirmed, I will examine this 

issue and follow up with you.

Question 3. I understand Secretary Mineta will retransmit the Bush Administration’s rail safety reauthorization bill in the near future. How will this proposed piece 

of legislation address the recent automobile train collisions that have occurred in 

Louisiana? 

Answer. I understand the Administration’s rail safety bill is in the process of 

being drafted, and it would be inappropriate to comment on it prior to introduction. 

52

However, if confirmed, I pledge to work with you to ensure that Louisiana’s recent 

crossing accidents are considered in the drafting process.

Question 4. Louisiana has 3,000 miles of railroad tracks and 6,017 rail crossings: 

3,017 public crossings and 3,000 on private property. As the new Federal Railroad 

Administrator how will you assist states who would like to consolidate and/or close 

railroad crossings? There is very strong opposition from local communities about 

closing railroad crossings. Will the Federal Railroad Administration work with 

states to provide incentives to the states/local communities regarding railroad crossing closures? 

Answer. I know that the FRA has been a strong advocate for closing highwayrail crossings. FRA headquarters and field staff will work with states to explore the 

options and explain to communities the benefits from closing crossings. In addition, 

Section 130 program funds are available—up to $7,500—for each crossing closed if 

matched by the railroad that maintains the highway-rail crossing to be closed. Since 

having fewer crossings is in the interest of railroads, they will often provide much 

more than $7,500 to assist communities in the closing of a highway-rail crossing. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that FRA staff is made available to help advise communities of their options. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BYRON L. DORGAN TO

JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN

Mr. Boardman, in my state of North Dakota, the community of Fargo/Moorhead 

has been working with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) to implement a quiet zone so that BNSF will stop blowing its horn when its trains go 

through town, while insuring the safety of the citizens and rail travelers. The communities have, and continue to expend significant funds and time to have this quiet 

zone go into effect, and the delays by the FRA stand to jeopardize these efforts. 

Question 1. The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 contemplated a rule-making 

process for quiet zones to be completed years ago. Every supplementary safety 

measure (SSM) is believed to reduce the possibility of accidents at grade crossings 

substantially—some by as much as two-thirds. It can be argued that the delay in 

the adoption of a final rule could cost lives. Are you committed to the adoption of 

a final rule as quickly as possible? 

Answer. I am happy to report that the Department of Transportation issued the 

Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Rail-Grade Crossings on April 22, 

2005.

Question 2. On April 12, 2005, I introduced the Welded Rail and Tank Car Safety 

Improvement Act with my colleague Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, to direct the 

FRA to implement the track and tank car safety measures recommended by the 

NTSB after a terrible derailment that took place in Minot, ND in 2001. If you are 

confirmed to the Federal Railroad Administration will you commit to move ahead 

with implementing the recommendations with utmost expediency? 

Answer. I understand that the FRA is actively working to address the recommendations made by the NTSB in the wake of the Minot derailment. If confirmed, I will ensure that this effort is given high priority.

Question 3. Do you feel that FRA has all of the resources it needs to operate? Does 

the FRA need more inspectors in order to effectively carry out its duties? 

Answer. I believe that the FRA’s budget is adequate and reflects its current level 

of responsibility. If confirmed, I will engage in an evaluation of how FRA resources 

are used, and how they might be used in the future. I will also look at how risk 

is measured now, and how we might do that job differently so that we can target 

our resources to improve rail safety.

Question 4. I understand that you have experienced several serious grade crossing 

accidents and other safety incidents in New York State over the past 2 years. As 

Commissioner, please describe your experiences in dealing with the FRA. Did you 

feel that the FRA had all the resources it needed to effectively achieve its mission 

in regard to those instances? 

Answer. During my time as Commissioner, the New York State Department of 

Transportation (NYSDOT) and the FRA have been partners under the Federal Railroad Safety Program for State Participation Agreement. This partnership existed before my time as Commissioner. Under this agreement, FRA conducts inspections 

and investigations in concert with NYSDOT. FRA’s participation with us helps both 

agencies maximize our resources, and our partnership works well. The grade crossing accidents and other safety incidents that occurred in New York in the past 2 

53

years were unfortunate, but I believe that both NYSDOT staff and FRA staff were 

effective in their responses. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN

Question 1. What is your opinion of the Administration’s calls for Amtrak’s bankruptcy? Do you believe that bankruptcy is a prudent or feasible way to restructure 

Amtrak? 

Answer. I believe that Secretary Mineta has stated that the President’s budget 

is a ‘‘call to action.’’ I understand that the budget raises the possibility of bankruptcy as a consequence of a failure to enact meaningful reform. 

I am firmly committed to enhancing intercity passenger rail in the United States. 

If confirmed I will work with this and other congressional committees, states, and 

stakeholders to find a reasonable solution for reforming passenger rail service in the 

United States.

Question 2. Many have characterized the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

as an agency ‘‘adrift’’ because of a series of senior-level management changes over 

the past year. What will you do as Administrator to help focus and reinvigorate the 

FRA? 

Answer. I have never led an organization that did not contain good people, good 

ideas, and the seeds for excellence. This means that I will first look within the FRA 

for the answer. Starting from the inside, I will encourage necessary developmental 

activities and training. I will not forget that I will be held accountable by the President and Congress for a clear direction for the FRA, and if confirmed, I will accept 

that accountability.

Question 3. What will your top priorities be as FRA Administrator? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will focus my efforts first and foremost on safety. I am 

also committed to reforming the nation’s intercity passenger rail service. Finally, I 

believe it is imperative to properly develop staff within the FRA.

Question 4. Do you believe the Federal Government should play a role in the financing and development of rail infrastructure and service? 

Answer. Yes. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN

Question 1. What do you perceive as the railroad industry’s biggest safety problem? 

Answer. I believe that, because of several recent high-profile accidents, the public 

is beginning lose confidence in the railroad industry’s safety record. The industry 

must demonstrate that they are willing to exceed safety expectations, not just meet 

the minimums. Safety must be treated as the most important issue to every railroad 

company, without as much as a hint of complacent behavior.

Question 2. Do you feel that security is adequately provided for in today’s railroading environment? 

Answer. I do not have that answer at this time. If confirmed, I will partner with 

the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration to secure our railroad environment.

Question 3. As Commissioner of Transportation for the State of New York, do you 

agree with the Administration’s plan for Amtrak, as it wants to place most of the 

responsibility for passenger rail funding with states? 

Answer. My experience as Commissioner of Transportation has convinced me that 

intercity passenger rail is critically important to both New York State and the 

Northeast region of the United States. In the Northeast, states already play a large 

role in intercity passenger rail. We have at least eight northeastern non-Amtrak 

passenger rail providers, and each operates cooperatively. However, even though the 

provider cooperation belies a ‘‘system’’ for all intents and purposes, they each consider themselves to be independent operators. Based upon this experience, I believe 

it is possible for states to come together to develop an intercity rail system. At the 

same time, the Federal Government must play a significant role in state-based 

intercity passenger rail.

Question 4. You stated in your preface to AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Rail 

Transportation Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation report that ‘‘rail passenger 

service provides much needed capacity and redundancy to the transportation sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:55 Nov 17, 2005 Jkt 023363 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\23363.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
54

tem.’’ Given the events on September 11, 2001, and the possibility of future terrorist 

acts in the United States, do you feel that passenger rail service is a necessary component of our national transportation system? 

Answer. Yes.

Question 5. As Commissioner of Transportation in New York, did you interact 

with passengers who used Amtrak on September 11, 2001, and the week following, 

when aviation was entirely shut down? If so do you feel their reliance on Amtrak, 

even if it was the only time they rode Amtrak, justifies such service? 

Answer. I have had interaction with passengers who used Amtrak as a result of 

the attack on 9/11/01. I believe that there is clear emotional support by those who 

used passenger rail to complete their trips during the aftermath of the terrorist attack on New York. I think having intercity passenger service available as a redundant mode for use is certainly a factor to be evaluated in support of intercity passenger rail, but I do not believe that it is the sole or primary factor.

Question 6. The Administration is proposing a massive shift of funding responsibility from the Federal Government to the states. As Chair of AASHTO’s Standing 

Committee on Rail Transportation, do you agree with the Administration’s plan for 

Amtrak? 

Answer. I believe that reform is needed. Stable intercity passenger rail is important to the states. The states believe that it is time to resolve future funding assistance for all modes of transportation, including rail passenger service. AASHTO has 

called for the enactment of long-term legislation assuring that the nation’s travelers 

will have efficient and dependable intercity passenger rail service.

Question 7. If Amtrak does not continue to operate as a railroad, as proposed in 

the Administration’s reform proposal, what effect do you feel there will be on the 

safety of Amtrak’s rail operation and coordination between infrastructure? 

Answer. Infrastructure safety must be provided for under any model, and the Federal Government will maintain a strong hand to ensure that safety is the first priority. I believe that any intercity passenger rail reform will require that the Federal 

Government bring infrastructure up to a standard of good repair (SOGR) for those 

assets under its control and accountability. The states should have a stake in any 

SOGR decision.

Question 8. Are you familiar with Great Britain’s experience in separating infrastructure management responsibilities with operating responsibilities on a massive 

scale? Given the safety implications of that experience, do you feel it was a wise 

move? Do you feel such a move is wise for the Northeast Corridor management responsibilities? 

Answer. My understanding is that Great Britain’s experience with separating rail 

infrastructure management responsibilities from rail operations involved dividing 

passenger services into 25 operating units, and infrastructure maintenance into 

seven maintenance companies and six track renewal companies. The British approach was far too complex. We have learned a great deal from Britain’s experiences. Thus, I don’t think anyone envisions the U.K.’s controversial approach being 

applied to the NEC. Rather, separation of infrastructure from operations on the 

NEC could emphasize clarity of responsibility, built-in incentives that support rather than undermine the underlying goal of cost-effective public transportation, and 

transparency of costs and their allocation. This approach could enable each entity 

to focus more clearly on its specific goal and responsibility.

Question 9. Amtrak is the only carrier that runs the length of the Northeast Corridor, and therefore is the only entity with an interest in ensuring infrastructure 

standards are constructed and maintained on a level of safety and engineering to 

support high-speed rail service. In fact, on many segments, Amtrak runs the only 

passenger rails. Given these facts and the myriad regional interests of the commuter rail users of the Northeast Corridor, do you believe that the Northeast Corridor can be equitably run with the leadership of Amtrak? 

Answer. Integral to any restructuring solution for the Northeast Corridor would 

be effective coordinating mechanisms for such joint tasks as scheduling, dispatching, 

accounting, and engineering. I believe that the states would have a strong interest 

in making sure these coordinating mechanisms are efficient and effective, and that 

the intercity operations maintain their relatively high quality of service, thereby 

making the highest possible contribution to the bottom line of the whole operation. 

Accordingly, there is every reason to expect that a new, intelligently-designed structure would be capable of managing the Northeast Corridor equitably.

Æ